Digitally signed by
Reporter of Decisions
Illinois Official Reports Reason: I attest to the
accuracy and
integrity of this
document
Appellate Court Date: 2017.01.09
10:22:24 -06'00'
In re J.P., 2016 IL App (1st) 161518
Appellate Court In re J.P., a Minor (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-
Caption Appellee, v. Tanisha C., Respondent-Appellant).
District & No. First District, Second Division
Docket No. 1-16-1518
Filed October 31, 2016
Decision Under Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 15-JA-455; the
Review Hon. Kimberly D. Lewis and the Hon. Maxwell Griffin, Jr., Judges,
presiding.
Judgment Affirmed.
Counsel on Amy P. Campanelli, Public Defender, of Chicago, for appellant.
Appeal
Anita M. Alvarez, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, for the People.
Marv Raibard, of Chicago, guardian ad litem.
Panel PRESIDING JUSTICE HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court,
with opinion.
Justices Neville and Pierce concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 Respondent Tanisha C. is the biological mother of the minor, J.P. The public defender of
Cook County, Tanisha’s attorney, has moved for leave to withdraw under Pennsylvania v.
Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987), based on the conclusion that there are no meritorious issues raised
in this appeal. Although the motion cites Finley, counsel has filed a brief referring to matters
that might arguably support an appeal, complying with the stricter standard for withdrawal
established in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Copies of the motion and brief were
sent to respondent advising her to submit any points in support of the appeal. She has not
responded.
¶2 Tanisha seeks to appeal from trial court orders that (i) found the minor was abused or
neglected due to an injurious environment, physical abuse, and substantial risk of physical
injury (705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(b), (2)(i)-(ii) (West 2014)); (ii) made no finding on the identity of
the perpetrator of the abuse and neglect; (iii) determined respondent is unable, for reasons
other than financial circumstances alone, to care for, protect, train, or discipline the minor (705
ILCS 405/2-27 (West 2014)); and (iv) adjudged the minor to be a ward of the court and placed
her in the custody and guardianship of the Department of Children and Family Services. (The
trial court also determined that Julius P., the father of J.P., was unable, for reasons other than
financial circumstances alone, to care for, protect, train, or discipline the minor. He is not a
party to this appeal.)
¶3 Withdrawal from Representation in Parental Rights Cases
¶4 Before considering the motion, we wish to address the correct manner by which appellate
counsel should seek to withdraw from representation on direct appeal, where the respondent
appeals from orders affecting parental rights under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (705
ILCS 405/1-1 et seq. (West 2014). No decision from the First District has resolved this issue,
and, in similar cases before this court, appellants’ attorneys have sought leave to withdraw
under Anders or Finley. Therefore, we clarify that the correct procedure for withdrawing from
representation follows the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Anders, rather than
Finley. See In re S.M., 314 Ill. App. 3d 682, 685 (2000) (“The procedure for appellate counsel
to withdraw as outlined in Anders applies to findings of parental unfitness and termination of
parental rights.”).
¶5 In clarifying the appropriate procedure, we briefly contrast the holdings in Anders and
Finley. In Anders, appointed counsel may request leave to withdraw from representation on
direct appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Recognizing that indigent defendants for whom
appellate counsel is appointed must receive “the same rights and opportunities” enjoyed by
defendants who can afford private counsel, the Court determined that appointed counsel must
act as “an active advocate,” even in the absence of issues of merit. Id. at 744-45.
¶6 As this court has explained, the Anders process consists of four steps. See In re S.M., 314
Ill. App. 3d at 685. First, counsel must file a brief that refers to anything in the record that
might arguably support the appeal, even though not a basis for appellate relief, or that might
arguably be meritorious in the judgment of the client, another attorney, or the court. Id. Next,
counsel must “(a) sketch the argument in support of the issues that could conceivably be raised
on appeal, and then (b) explain why [counsel] believes the arguments are frivolous.” Id. Then,
counsel must conclude that no viable grounds exist for the appeal. Id. Finally, counsel, “to
-2-
properly fulfill *** responsibilities under Anders,” should attach transcripts of the relevant
hearings, including, in cases involving termination of parental rights cases, the fitness and best
interests hearings. Id.
¶7 In Finley, by contrast, the Court held that the Anders procedure is not required where
counsel seeks to withdraw from representation on collateral appeal. Finley, 481 U.S. at 554-55.
The Court explained that states may elect to recognize a right to counsel in collateral
proceedings but are not so required by the United States Constitution. Id. at 556-57.
Consequently, states need not impose Anders’ “prophylactic framework” when appellate
counsel requests leave to withdraw on collateral appeal, as “no [federal constitutional]
obligation to provide this avenue of relief” exists. Id. at 555, 557.
¶8 As we have stated, Anders, and not Finley, provides the correct procedure where counsel
seeks to withdraw from representation on direct appeal from orders affecting parental rights
under the Act. Although proceedings related to parental rights are civil in nature, and a parent’s
right to counsel is statutory (705 ILCS 405/1-5(1) (West 2014)), nonetheless, Anders applies
because it “put[s] the indigent appellants on the same footing as those able to afford private
counsel and accomplishes the constitutional and statutory purpose for their appointment.” In re
Keller, 138 Ill. App. 3d 746, 747-48 (1985). Also, “[t]ermination of parental rights is a serious
matter” (In re Adoption of H.B., 2012 IL App (4th) 120459, ¶ 18), which affects
responsibilities “of deep human importance” (In re S.M., 314 Ill. App. 3d at 685). Given these
equitable considerations, the motion for leave to withdraw as counsel should specifically cite
to Anders.
¶9 Review in This Case
¶ 10 Here, we observe that counsel’s motion included a memorandum of law that meets the
Anders requirements. We have carefully reviewed the record, along with counsel’s brief, and
find no issues of arguable merit to be asserted on appeal. Therefore, although counsel
designated the motion under Finley, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and
affirm the orders of the circuit court. We instruct the bar, however, that Finley is inapposite to
cases involving direct appeals from orders affecting parental rights under the Act, and reiterate
that, in these type of cases, motions to withdraw are properly brought under Anders.
¶ 11 Affirmed.
-3-