Jоseph Heron, a juvenile, appeals from the Order of Disposition entered on June 1, 1995 following an аdjudication of delinquency after appellant was convicted of rape, 1 involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, 2 aggravated indecent assault 3 and indecent assault. 4 Pursuant to the Order, appellant was placed under the “intensive supervision of the Susquehanna County Juvenile Probation Dеpartment” subject to the following terms and conditions: 1) appellant shall have no contact ■with children under the age of 14 years old without appropriate adult supervision; 2) appellant shall hаve .no contact with the victim or her family; 3) appellant shall be responsible for making restitution for сounseling to the victim; 4) appellant’s parents shall also be responsible for restitution; 5) appеllant shall be responsible for court costs relating to this matter; 6) appellant shall receive individual and family counseling; 7) appellant shall complete 25 hours of community service; and 8) appellant shall not miss more than three days of school for *687 the remaining (1995-1996) school year. See Order, 6/1/95. In addition to the appeal, we have before us a petition for leave to withdraw as counsel filed by appellant’s counsel, Lisa M. Andrejko, which must be decided prior to review of the appeal on its merits.
Appellant’s counsel seeks to withdraw from this appeal pursuant to
Commonwealth v. McClendon,
On January 26, 1996, counsel filed a petition with this Court averring that her review of the record “demonstrates the absence of any meritorious appellate issues.” Also, the petition avers that “Counsel has communicated with appellant and attempted to explain the absence of any meritorious appellate issues.” Finally, the petition avers that “Cоunsel has sent to appellant a copy of the instant petition, a copy of the brief filed in this сase, and a letter ... explaining the defendant’s right to forward any additional arguments and/or to retain nеw counsel to represent him.”
Based upon our examination of the record, we find that counsel hаs failed to comply with the requirements of
Anders, McClendon
and their progeny. First, Attorney Andrejko has failed to assert, eithеr in her petition or brief, that appellant’s
*688
claims on appeal are wholly frivolous. Instead, Attorney Andrejko states only that her review of the record “demonstrates the absence of any meritorious appellate issues” and therefore “she is unable to raise any argument which would permit this Court to grant either a new trial or an arrest of judgment.” (Appellant’s brief at 9.) Our law is crystal clear “that lack of merit in an appeal is not the legal equivalent of frivolity.”
McClendon, supra
at 471,
Anders appears to rest narrowly on the distinction between complete frivolity and absence of merit. The latter is not enough to support either a request by counsel to withdraw, nor the granting of such a request by the court.
McClendon, supra, citing Greer, supra
at 108-109,
It is only after
all
of the requirements attendаnt to counsel’s request to withdraw are met that a reviewing court will make a full examination of the proceedings and render an independent judgment of whether the appeal is in fact “wholly frivolous”.
Commonwealth v. Kennedy,
Secondly, counsel’s letter “explaining [appellant’s] right to forward any additional arguments and/or to retain new counsel to represent him”, Petition to Withdraw as Counsel at 2, does not specifically advise аppellant of his right to proceed pro se, as required by Anders, McClendon and their progeny.
Finally, we note that counsel’s letter was addressed to appellant’s parents. While our courts have not addressed- the question of whom shоuld receive the notice required by Anders and McClendon in a case involving a juvenile, we find an analogous provision in thе Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301 et seq. Section 6355 of the Act, Transfer to criminal proceedings, regarding notice of a criminal hearing following transfer from juvenile court, provides:
(3) Notice in writing of the time, place and purрose of the hearing is [to be] given to the child and his parents....
*689
Id.,
§ 6355(a)(3) (emphasis added);
see also Com. ex rel. Freeman v. Superintendent of State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill,
We find the requirement of the Juvenilе Act that notice be given to a juvenile and his/her parents applicable to Anders cases involving juveniles.
Hence, in additiоn to filing an amended petition alleging frivolity, counsel on remand must notify
both
appellant and his parents of the request to withdraw, appellant’s right to retain new counsel
or proceed pro se,
and his right to raise any points he deems worthy of consideration.
McClendon, supra
at 470-72,
Case remanded for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
Jurisdiction retained.