### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00826- CV
D. M., Appellant
v. Texas Depart m ent of Fam ily and P rote ctive Service s, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 146 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 249 ,933 -B , H ONO RAB LE RICKMO RRIS, J UDGE P RESIDING

O R D E R
D.M. appea ls from a trial court judgme nt terminating her pare ntal rig hts to h er daug hter. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)( D), (E), (N), (2) (West Supp. 2012). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief concluding that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. See Anders

v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967); Taylor v. Texas Dep’ t of Protective & Regulatory Servs. , 160 S.W .3d 641, 646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (apply ing Anders p ro ce d ure in ap p eal from termination of pare ntal rig hts); In re E.L.Y

. , 69 S.W .3d 838, 839 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, order ) (

Anders proce dure applies in termination case s, counsel order ed to amend inadequa te Anders brief) ; In re A.W .T. , 61 S.W .3d 87, 88 (T ex . Ap p . — Amarillo 2001, no pet.) ( Anders rationale applies to appointed counsel in termination proce eding s); In re K.S.M. , 61 S.W .3d 632, 633 (Tex. App.—Ty ler 2001, no pet.) (same)
. We conclude , howeve r, that the Anders brief is inadequa te and must be ame nded.An Anders brief is defic ient as to form if it does not ref l ec t a p rofe ssional evalua tion of the rec ord demonstrating that there are no arg uable g rounds for appea l. W ilson v. State , 40 S.W .3d 192, 198 (Tex. A pp.—Texarkana 2001, no pet.). A brief without suc h an evalua tion is of limit ed use in ensuring that the appellant’ s rig ht to counsel on appea l is protec t ed an d in evalua ting whether the appea l lacks merit. Id. at 198-99 (citing High v. State , 573 S .W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)). Def iciencie s of form include technica l violations of the Anders require ments (e.g ., failing to raise arg uable issues or failing to cite to the rec ord or to leg al authority ), but also include the failure to discuss issues appea ring prominently in the rec ord. Id. at 199. When
an Anders brief is defe ctive, counsel shoul d be aff orded the opportunity to amend the brief to addre ss the defic iencies. Id.

Although appel l an t ’s counsel filed a brief purporting to provide a profe ssional evalua tion of the rec ord demonstrating the absenc e of arg uable g rounds to be advanc ed, the brief is defe ctive beca

use it fails to discuss potential issues appea ring prominently in the rec ord, including, but not necessa

rily limit ed to, (1) the trial court’ s denial of a ppellant’s motion for dismissal based
on the failure to prosec ute the case within t h e t i m e l i mits presc ribed by section 263.401 of the family code and (2) the trial court’s ref usal of appellant’ s reque st to modify the jury char g e to require
a finding of an act war

ranting termination that occur red afte r April 12, 2011. Counsel is direc ted to file a brief that addre sses the defe cts in form within thirty day s of the date of this Orde r. No further extensions wil l be g rante d.

2I f counsel seeks to withdraw from repr esenting appellant aft er ad d ressing the

defic iencies in the Anders brief, the motion to withdraw shall confor m to the require ments of Tex. R. App. P. 6.5. I t is so ordered on F ebrua ry 28, 2013.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Goodwin and F ield

3