In re A.N.M.

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

This is an accelerated appeal from the trial court's final order terminating appellant's parental rights. Appellant's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. See In re RR, No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, May 21, 2003, order) (holding that Anders procedures apply to appeals from orders terminating parental rights), disp. on merits, 2003 WL 22080522 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, Sept. 10, 2003, no pet.)(mem. op.).

When counsel "cannot, in good faith, advance any arguable grounds of error," counsel's Anders brief must "contain a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced." High, 573 S.W.2d at 812. The brief must: refer the court to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; discuss the evidence adduced at trial; supply the court with ready references to the record; and supply the court with appropriate citations to legal authorities. Id., at 812-13. The Anders brief must "demonstrate that counsel has conscientiously examined the record and determined that the appeal is so frivolous that the appellant is not entitled to counsel on appeal." Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.).

The brief filed by appointed counsel on behalf of appellant C.S. does not meet these requirements. Specifically, the brief does not contain any citations to the five-volume reporter's record; it does not recite or discuss any of the evidence presented at trial; and it does not contain any legal analysis. Moreover, counsel incorrectly states this appeal is governed by section 13.003(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4(b)(3) ("Section 13.003 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code does not apply to an appeal from a parental termination or child protection case" (emphasis added)). Counsel also errs in stating that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion. See In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002)(trial court's findings in parental rights termination case are reviewed for legal and factual sufficiency under heightened standard); In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25 (Tex. 2002) (same). In sum, the brief does not contain a professional evaluation of the record and does not demonstrate there are no arguable grounds for appeal.

We therefore strike counsel's Anders brief and order appellant's brief redrawn. We order the redrawn brief due May 16, 2013. We further order counsel to notify appellant that the Anders brief has been struck and there is no current deadline for filing a pro se brief.

______________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 1st day of May, 2013.

______________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court