IN RE: A.W. (2019)

Respondent appeals an order adjudicating A.W. as a neglected juvenile. Respondent's appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Rule 3.1(d) stating that, after a conscientious and thorough review of the record on appeal, he has concluded that the record contains no issue of merit on which to base an argument for relief. N.C. R. App. P. 3.1(d). Appellate counsel provided Respondent with copies of the no-merit brief, trial transcript, and record on appeal and advised her of her right to file a brief pro se with this Court; however, Respondent did not exercise her right to file a pro se brief. Accordingly, no issues have been argued or preserved in accordance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. In re L.V., ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 814 S.E.2d 928, 929 (2018); In re I.B., ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, ––– S.E.2d ––––, –––– (No. COA18-608) (detailing “settled rules of interpretation [that] support a conclusion that we are not required to conduct an independent review of the record under the text of Rule 3.1(d) as it is written”).

DISMISSED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

Based on the rationale in my dissenting opinion in In re L.E.M., ––– N.C. App. ––––, 820 S.E.2d 577 (2018), I believe this Court is required to conduct an Anders-type review when a no-merit brief is filed pursuant to the requirements of N.C. R. App. P. 3.1(d). Based on a review of the record, I am unable to find any prejudicial error in the trial court's adjudication of neglect. The order includes sufficient findings of fact, based on stipulation of the parties, to support the trial court's legal conclusions. See In re Q.A., 245 N.C. App. 71, 73-4, 781 S.E.2d 862, 864 (2016). Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court's order.

MURPHY, Judge.

Judge HUNTER, Jr. concurs. Chief Judge McGEE dissents in a separate opinion.