in the Interest of E.L., a Child

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 18, 2015. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-15-00192-CV IN THE INTEREST OF E.L., A CHILD, Appellant On Appeal from the 315th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012-05682J MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Rodrick McCray, appeals a final decree signed February 2, 2015, terminating his parental rights to the child who is the subject of this suit. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which counsel concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The Anders procedures are applicable to an appeal from the termination of parental rights when an appointed attorney concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal. In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.). On May 20, 2015, a copy of the record and counsel’s brief were delivered to appellant, and appellant was notified of the right to file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 329–30. As of this date, no pro se response has been filed. We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief carefully and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Busby 2