Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 21, 2019.

In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-18-00839-CV IN THE INTEREST OF Z.Z.A-S., A CHILD On Appeal from the 315th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017-00529J

NO. 14-18-00840-CV IN THE INTEREST OF Z.A.A.-S-T. AKA Z.T., A CHILD On Appeal from the 315th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017-04990J MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant S.C. appeals the final orders terminating the parent-child relationship between her and her sons, Z.Z.A-S. and Z.A.A.-S.T. aka Z.T, respectively. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(a-1). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The Anders procedures apply to an appeal from the termination of parental rights when an appointed attorney concludes 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.).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of her right to inspect the appellate records and file a pro se response to the brief.

See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 60 days have passed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the records and counsel’s brief and agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the records. A discussion of the appellate brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d at 330.

Accordingly, the trial court’s final orders terminating the parent-child relationship are affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Spain.