In Re Andrew B.

*828 Opinion

Is the Court of Appeal compelled, per Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 493 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 ], its progeny, and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 839 , 600 P.2d 1071 ], to independently review the record when appointed counsel in a juvenile dependency appeal brought as a matter of statutory right submits a brief that does not argue against the client, but advises the appellate court no issues were found to raise on the client’s behalf? Yes.

I

The juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction over these three siblings on January 17, 1995, and granted their mother sole legal and physical custody. Father Herbert B. exercised his statutory right to appeal; and because he is presently unable to afford counsel, this court appointed an attorney to represent him (Welf. & Inst. Code, §317). The record was prepared at no cost to the father (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395). His attorney filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case. She did not argue against her client, but advised she found no issue to assert on his behalf and asked this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 ; In re…

While I concur the judgment must be affirmed, I respectfully disagree with the majority on the Wende issue. I am afraid Botticelli’s Venus is not quite the image that springs to mind when I contemplate the Wende doctrine. (See maj. opn., ante, at p. 831.) One of Mr. Escher’s exasperating staircases to nowhere would be more like it.

I agree with and would sign In re Kayla G. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 878 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 86 ], which another panel of this division is filing this day. 2 Rather than recapitulate the points made by the Kayla G. majority, I will confine my observations to one of Wende’s unexamined assumptions—that competent appellate lawyers raise any issue which is “arguable.” The word “arguable,” as in “arguable issue,” appears no less than 10 times in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 839 , 600 P.2d 1071 ], and it is the “arguable issue” which the appellate court is supposed to be looking for when it examines the “entire record.” (See id. at p. 438.) The assumption does not withstand critical analysis.

It is amazing the degree to which appellate judges, when they focus on the nuts and bolts of appellate advocacy, regularly advise against raising…

Harold F. LaFlamme, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minors.

OPINION

CROSBY, J.

(1a) Is the Court of Appeal compelled, per Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [ 18 L.Ed.2d 493 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 ], its progeny, and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 [ 158 Cal. Rptr. 839 , 600 P.2d 1071 ], to independently review the record when appointed counsel in a juvenile dependency appeal brought as a matter of statutory right submits a brief that does not argue against the client, but advises the appellate court no issues were found to raise on the client's behalf? Yes.

The juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction over these three siblings on January 17, 1995, and granted their mother sole legal and physical custody. Father Herbert B. exercised his statutory right to appeal; and because he is presently unable to afford counsel, this court appointed an attorney to represent him (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 317). The record was prepared at no cost to the father (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 395). His attorney filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case. She did not argue against her client, but advised she found no issue to assert on his behalf and asked this…