In re M.M.
Father Mario M. (father) appeals March 16, 2012, orders of the San Francisco Juvenile Court authorizing adoption for his daughter M.M. and terminating his parental rights.
On June 20, 2012, father’s appointed appellate counsel filed a “no issues†statement (see In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 (Sadie C.)), stating he had thoroughly reviewed the entire record, but found no arguable issues to raise on appeal. Counsel delivered this bad news to father, but invited father to file a supplemental letter with this court if father wished to raise trial court errors counsel had neglected. On June 20, 2012, we too notified father of counsel’s decision to file a “no issues†statement. And, as has been the custom in this district (but not all others) we offered father “the opportunity to file,†within 30 days, “a letter stating issues you feel should be reviewed on appeal.†(See In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 839, 844 [noting split amongst districts and holding no Court of Appeal must afford parents this opportunity because of the desire for prompt resolution of juvenile dependency cases and the “negligible†chance for injustice once appointed counsel has found no issues to raise]; In re R.H. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 678, 684 [fifth district invites letters].)
Comments on In re M.M.