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 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 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.).