Page:Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131 (2004).pdf/10

Rh Appellate courts in South Dakota and Utah have applied similar reasoning in adopting Anders-like procedures. ''People ex rel. South Dakota Dep't of Social Services, supra; L.C. v. Utah, supra''.

Other courts have examined the additional protections and guidance the Anders procedures offer the indigent appellant and the court. The Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama has emphasized that the court-appointed appellate counsel should have "some means by which to effectively represent his client and yet be allowed to withdraw without having to file a frivolous appeal" J.K. v. Lee County Dep't of Human Resources, 668 So.2d at 815. The Alabama court went on to explain that there was no practical difference in making the attorney continue with the appeal, thus raising frivolous issues that the appellate court will have to review, and requiring an Anders brief raising possible issues but notifying the court that counsel believed the appeal was frivolous. Appellate courts in both Alabama and New Mexico have recognized that the arguments and legal authority cited in a no-merit brief would assist both the appellate court and the indigent parent. The appellate court can use the brief to conduct a more thorough and more informed review of the record, and the indigent parent can use the brief in pressing her contentions on appeal. J.K. v. Lee County Dep't of Human Resources, supra; State ex rd. Children, Youth, and Families Dep't v. Alicia P., supra. Essentially, because the indigent parent has access to the arguments and legal authority in the brief, she is in the same position as those able to afford private counsel. Matter of Keller, 138 Ill.App.3d at 747.

[3] Some jurisdictions have declined to adopt the Anders procedures for appeals from orders terminating parental rights, arguing the additional time necessary to fulfill the Anders requirements could cause harm to the child at issue in the case. N.S.H. v. Florida Dep't of Children and Family Services, 843 So.2d 898 (Fla. 2003); In re Harrison, 136 N.C. App. 831, 526 S.E.2d 502 (2000); Denise H. v. Arizona Dep't of Economic Security, 193 Ariz. 257, 972 P.2d 241 (Ct. App. 1998); In re Sade C., 13 Cal. 4th 952, 920 P.2d 716 (1996); Ex parte Cauthen v. Almendarez, 291 S.C. 465, 354 S.E.2d 381 (1987). While we do recognize the need to resolve