Opinion
No. 04-13-00551-CV
2013-10-16
IN THE INTEREST OF N.F. ET AL CHILDREN
From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2011-PA-02295
Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding
ORDER
Appellant father O.M. appeals the trial court's termination of his parental rights. Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. In In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.), we held that in parental-termination appeals, a procedure akin to Anders is necessary to best protect the statutory right to counsel on appeal, to provide a procedural mechanism for counsel to fulfill his ethical obligations, to assist the court in deciding appeals, and to provide consistent procedures for all indigent litigants. In compliance with the procedure set out in Anders, appellant's attorney has informed appellant of his right to file his own brief. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, he must do so within twenty (20) days from the date of this order. If appellant files a pro se brief, appellee may file a responsive brief no later than twenty days after the date appellant's pro se brief is filed in this court. We ORDER the motion to withdraw, filed by appellant's counsel, to be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of the court.
____________________________
Karen Angelini, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 16th day of October, 2013.
___________________________________
Keith E. Hottle
Clerk of Court