Opinion
04-21-00281-CV
09-09-2021
IN THE INTEREST OF Z.M.M., A CHILD,
From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 20-0370-CV-A Honorable Thomas Nathaniel Stuckey, Judge Presiding
ORDER
Beth Watkins, Justice
Appellant's appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 368 U.S. 738 (1967). After reviewing the brief, we find the brief 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.). Specifically, while the brief concludes there are no arguable grounds to challenge the trial court's findings on a predicate ground for termination, it does not contain any analysis showing whether counsel considered if there are arguable grounds to challenge the trial court's finding that termination is in the best interest of the child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001 (trial court may order termination of the parent-child relationship only if it finds by clear and convincing evidence both a predicate ground for termination and that termination is in the best interest of the child); In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 295 (Tex. 2002) (same).
Accordingly, we ORDER appointed counsel's Anders brief stricken and that the brief be redrawn. We ORDER the redrawn brief to be filed in this court by September 29, 2021. 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. 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).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 9th day of September, 2021.