Opinion
04-23-00667-CV
09-07-2023
IN THE INTEREST OF Z.J., N. J., Children
From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022-PA-00579 Honorable Raul Perales, Judge Presiding
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Appellant is the biological father of two children, Z.J. and N.J. On June 21, 2023, the trial court signed an order that: (1) terminated appellant's parental rights to N.J.; (2) appointed appellant as possessory conservator of Z.J.; and (3) appointed the Department as permanent managing conservator of both children. On July 7, 2023, appellant filed a notice of appeal stating that he "desires to appeal the order of termination or conservatorship signed on or about June 21, 2023[.]"
Appellant's attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 368 U.S. 738 (1967). After reviewing the brief, we conclude it is insufficient in light of our decision in In re N.F.M., 582 S.W.3d 539 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Dec. 19, 2018, no pet.). The brief contains a professional evaluation of the record regarding the trial court's termination of appellant's parental rights to N.J., and it explains why appellant's attorney believes there are no arguable grounds to be advanced regarding that ruling. However, the brief does not include any legal analysis explaining why appellant's attorney believes there are no arguable grounds to challenge the trial court's conservatorship ruling regarding Z.J. See id. at 543-44. Nor does the brief represent that appellant has abandoned his desire to appeal the conservatorship ruling.
Accordingly, we ORDER appointed counsel's Anders brief stricken and that the brief be amended. We ORDER the amended brief to be filed in this court by September 27, 2023. We further ORDER appointed counsel to notify appellant that the Anders brief has been stricken, that there is no current deadline for filing a pro se brief, and to provide this court with proof that he has notified appellant as ordered.
We advise counsel to pay particular attention to the necessary components of an Anders brief as set out in our decision in N.F.M. See 582 S.W.3d at 541-44. Appointed counsel is instructed that pursuant to our decision in N.F.M., conclusory statements that the appeal is frivolous are inadequate; rather, appointed counsel must explain why and how he reached his conclusion that the appeal is frivolous as to both children. See Earle v. Ratliff, 998 S.W.2d 882, 890 (Tex. 1999) (holding statement is conclusory if basis for statement is unexplained); CA Partners v. Spears, 274 S.W.3d 51, 63 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (holding that conclusory statement is one that does not provide underlying facts to support conclusion).
It is so ORDERED.