                                      In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                           ____________________
                              NO. 09-13-00036-CV
                           ____________________

                          IN THE INTEREST OF T.V.
_______________________________________________________           ______________

                   On Appeal from the County Court at Law
                             Polk County, Texas
                         Trial Cause No. PC05244
________________________________________________________           _____________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      After a bench trial, the trial court terminated C.V.’s parental rights to her

daughter T.V. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory

grounds existed for termination, and that termination of C.V.’s parental rights

would be in the best interest of T.V. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001 (West

Supp. 2012). C.V. appeals the trial court’s judgment.

      Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief that presents a professional

evaluation of the record and demonstrates why there are no arguable grounds to be

advanced on appeal. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

See generally Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493

                                         1
(1967) (procedure in criminal cases); see also Taylor v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective &

Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied)

(applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights).

      Appellant’s attorney notified his client that he found no meritorious issues

for appeal, that he filed an Anders brief with the Court, and that she had the option

of filing a pro se response on appeal to raise issues on her behalf. He also informed

her that she should request a complete copy of the trial court record. This Court

notified appellant of her right to file a pro se response, as well as the deadline for

filing it. C.V. timely filed her pro se response. She later filed a letter asking for

more time to file another pro se response. The filing deadline has passed.

      After reviewing the clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, the counsel’s brief,

and C.V.’s pro se response, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that there are no

plausible grounds for appeal. We find no arguable error requiring us to order

appointment of new counsel to re-brief this appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s order

terminating C.V.’s parental rights to T.V., and we grant appellant’s attorney’s

motion to withdraw. 1

      1
        In connection with withdrawing from the case, counsel shall inform
appellant of the outcome of this appeal and inform her that she has the right to file
a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 53; In the
                                          2
      The judgment is affirmed.

      AFFIRMED.


                                           ________________________________
                                                   DAVID GAULTNEY
                                                         Justice

Submitted on April 9, 2013
Opinion Delivered May 23, 2013

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.




Interest of K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no
pet.).
                                       3
