in the Interest of E.J., J.J., V.J., and C.J.., Children

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided June 21, 2017·No. 10-16-00417-CV·Published

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00417-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.J., J.J., V.J., AND C.J., CHILDREN

From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 15-000408-CV-85

ORDER

On June 1, 2017, appellants, Jennifer and Jason, filed a motion to exceed the word

limit in their pro se response to their appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and

supporting Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d

493 (1967). Notwithstanding that this is a “response” not contemplated by the word limit

for briefs, we nevertheless grant the motion and have filed the response.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Motion granted Order issued and filed June 21, 2017

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

in the Interest of E.J., J.J., V.J., and C.J.., Children, (Tex. Ct. App. 2017).

in the Interest of E.J., J.J., V.J., and C.J.., Children (in the Interest of E.J., J.J., V.J., and C.J.., Children) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)