In re J. M.
2013 Ohio 5896
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- J.M., born January 2009, was placed in the care of nonrelative Debra by his mother Amber; Debra was his sole caregiver for ~18 months but never obtained legal custody.
- Debra filed for custody in March 2010; while that petition was pending HCJFS obtained interim custody (July 2010) but left J.M. with Debra pending a home study.
- Home study identified serious concerns: diagnoses (paranoid schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder), substance-abuse history, prior neglect allegations, and criminal contacts; the court removed J.M. from Debra’s care in December 2010.
- Amber later supported permanent surrender and adoption through HCJFS; HCJFS sought and the magistrate granted permanent custody to HCJFS over Debra’s objection and pending custody motion.
- Debra’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no nonfrivolous issues and moved to withdraw; the appellate court (First Dist.) independently reviewed the record, agreed no meritorious issues existed, affirmed the juvenile court, but held Anders procedures are inappropriate in parental-termination/legal-custody appeals going forward.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anders procedure is appropriate in appeals terminating parental rights or awarding legal custody | Anders brief protected counsel from filing frivolous appeals; prior local practice permitted Anders briefs in such civil custody appeals | Anders is a criminal-procedure tool; extending it undermines appellate review and counsel’s duty to advocate; counsel should present arguable issues | Anders procedure is not appropriate in permanent-custody/legal-custody appeals; the court will no longer accept Anders briefs in such cases |
| Whether counsel may withdraw after filing an Anders brief in this case | Counsel sought withdrawal after filing Anders brief concluding appeal wholly frivolous | Court must ensure parent’s rights are protected; counsel withdrawal not appropriate absent a fuller advocacy role in these cases | Court overruled counsel’s motion to withdraw (though it independently reviewed the record and affirmed trial court) |
| Whether the juvenile-court grant of permanent custody to HCJFS was supported by the record | Debra argued for custody based on her ongoing caregiving relationship | HCJFS relied on home-study findings and Amber’s surrender and evidence that permanent custody was in child’s best interests | Trial court’s permanency decision affirmed; record contained no prejudicial error supporting appeal |
| Whether appellate courts should perform Anders-style independent review in this case given counsel’s reliance on prior practice | Counsel relied on precedent permitting Anders briefs and asked withdrawal | Court acknowledged reliance but emphasized future change in procedure | Court performed independent Anders-style review here, found no meritorious issues, affirmed, but proscribed future Anders appeals in such cases |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (announces procedure for court-appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous in criminal cases)
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963) (right to counsel in criminal cases)
- Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (U.S. 1963) (right to appellate counsel for indigent defendants)
- Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (U.S. 2000) (Anders procedure is prophylactic; states may adopt different safeguards)
- In re Hoffman, 97 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2002) (permanent-custody proceedings implicate fundamental due-process rights)
- State ex rel. Heller v. Miller, 61 Ohio St.2d 6 (Ohio 1979) (discusses constitutional guarantees to counsel)
- In re Sade C., 13 Cal.4th 952 (Cal. 1996) (rejected Anders extension to termination proceedings)
- N.S.H. v. Florida Dept. of Children and Family Servs., 843 So.2d 898 (Fla. 2003) (declined to extend Anders to termination cases)
- A.L.L. v. People, 226 P.3d 1054 (Colo. 2010) (criticizes Anders in parental-termination context; declined extension)