C.H. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her minor child, T.H. ^[1] The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that statutory grounds exist for termination of C.H.’s parental rights and that termination of C.H.’s parental rights would be in the best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(E), (N), (O), (2) (West 2014).

C.H.’s court-appointed appellate counsel submitted a brief in which counsel contends there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See Anders v. *2 California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re L.D.T ., 161 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.— Beaumont 2005, no pet.). The brief provides counsel’s professional evaluation of the record. Counsel certified that C.H. was served with a copy of the Anders brief filed on her behalf. This Court notified C.H. of her right to file a pro se response, as well as the deadline for doing so. This Court did not receive a pro se response. We have independently reviewed the appellate record and counsel’s brief, and we agree that any appeal would be frivolous. 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.H.’s parental rights, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ^[2]

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on November 10, 2015

Opinion Delivered November 12, 2015

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

[1] To protect the identity of the minor, we use the initials for the child and the child’s mother. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(2). 1

[2] With respect to withdrawing from the case, counsel shall inform C.H. 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 Interest of K.D. , 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). 2