Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After W.L. was born, Mother and Father consented to Mother’s parents’ exercising a guardianship over W.L. A year after the guardianship’s inception, Father filed a petition to terminate the guardianship. The circuit court denied Father’s petition. Thereafter, Mother and Father both filed petitions to terminate the guardianship and for custody. The circuit court denied relief, concluding that Father and Mother were unfit and that termination of the guardianship was not in W.L.’s best interest. Father appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court clearly erred in finding that Father was an unfit parent, and therefore, the court should have terminated the guardianship once Father revoked his consent to it; and (2) once the guardianship was terminated, the court should have determined which parent was the proper custodian. Since Mother did not appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the case for the court to enter an order terminating guardianship and granting custody of W.L. to Father. View "In re Guardianship of W.L." on Justia Law

Jessica Foust and Maria Montez-Torres lived together as a family unit with Montez-Torres’s two biological children. During the relationship, Montez-Torres had a brief relationship with a man and conceived M.F. Three years later, Foust and Montez-Torres ended their relationship, and Montez-Torres and M.F. moved out of the home. After Foust was no longer allowed visitation with M.F. she filed a complaint seeking custody, or in the alternative, visitation with the child. The circuit court concluded that Foust stood in loco parentis to M.F. for the first three years of M.F.’s life but that it was not in M.F.’s best interest to continue visitation with her. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Foust, a nonparent, had no standing to petition for custody or visitation where she did not stand in loco parentis to M.F. at the time of the petition. View "Foust v. Montez-Torres" on Justia Law

Mother gave birth to S.H. in 2005. In 2008, Mother consented to a permanent guardianship over S.H. in favor of Father’s parents (Grandparents). Sixteen months later, Mother withdrew her consent and filed a petition to terminate the guardianship. The circuit court denied Mother’s petition to terminate the guardianship. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the guardianship statute, as applied to Mother, was an unconstitutional violation of her fundamental liberty interest with respect to the care, custody, and control of her child. On remand and after three separate hearings, the circuit court held that Mother had not put forth sufficient evidence to show that the guardianship was no longer necessary and that Grandparents had rebutted the presumption that termination of the guardianship was in S.H.’s best interest. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for an order returning S.H. to Mother’s custody and terminating Grandparents’ guardianship, holding that the circuit court erred (1) when it ruled that Mother failed to meet her burden going forward that the guardianship was no longer necessary; and (2) in ruling that, even if Mother met her initial burden, Grandparents rebutted the presumption that terminating the guardianship was in S.H.’s best interest. View "In re Guardianship of S.H." on Justia Law

In 2014, the circuit court entered an order terminating the parental rights of Appellants, Abigail Ransom and Owen Harvey, to their minor child. Appellants failed to timely appeal. Appellants subsequently filed two simultaneous motions, one seeking to file a belated appeal and one seeking to proceed in forma pauperis. The Supreme Court remanded the matter for a finding of attorney fault. The circuit court concluded that Ransom’s attorney was at fault for Ransom’s delay and that Harvey’s delay was not due to attorney error. In accordance with the circuit court’s findings, the Supreme Court granted Ransom’s motion for belated appeal and petition to proceed forma pauperis and denied Harvey’s motion for belated appeal and motion to proceed forma pauperis. View "Ransom v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law

The circuit court entered an order and decree and divorce dissolving the marriage of John and Christy Kelly, and John Kelly appealed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. After the circuit court entered its final order, John again appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in denying John’s motion to preclude any argument by Christy relating to the unequal distribution of certain stock; (2) the circuit court did not err in awarding the stock to Christy as an unequal division of property; (3) the Court’s mandate in Kelly I did not preclude the circuit court from addressing the deficiency on the marital home; and (4) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Christy to deposit alimony owed to John into the registry of the court. View "Kelly v. Kelly" on Justia Law

Wife filed an amended complaint for divorce alleging that she was entitled to a divorce on the ground of adultery. On the date of the final divorce hearing, Wife failed to appear for trial. The trial court proceeded with the hearing. The circuit court ultimately entered its decree and awarded Wife a divorce on the ground of adultery. Wife appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in granting her the divorce when she was not present at the hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court clearly erred by granting the divorce on Wife’s amended complaint based on the testimony of Husband and his witnesses when Wife was not present at trial. View "Olson v. Olson" on Justia Law

Upon Mother’s arrest on drug-related charges, the circuit court declared that C.N. was dependent-neglected and awarded Father permanent custody of C.N. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, directing the circuit court to return C.N. to Mother’s custody. The Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition requesting an emergency hearing, asserting that issues of grave concern had arisen during the pendency of the appeal. In its ruling from the bench, the circuit court found, among other things, that Mother had been arrested twice in the past year, that placing C.N. in Mother’s care was not safe, and that placing it would be detrimental to C.N. to remove him from Father’s home. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not violate the mandate of the Court issued in the prior appeal; and (2) the circuit court’s findings were supported by the evidence. View "Ingle v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law

Appellant’s attorney, Jeffrey Kearney, failed to timely file a notice of appeal from the circuit court’s order terminating Appellant’s parental rights. Appellant, by and through her attorney, brought this motion for rule on clerk in which Kearney admitted fault for failing to timely lodge the record with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted the motion, holding (1) although the motion was presented as a motion for rule on clerk wherein Kearney accepted fault for the failure to timely lodge the record, the motion should be treated as a motion for belated appeal because of Kearney’s failure to timely file the notice of appeal; and (2) Appellant was entitled to relief. View "Holloway v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law

Appellee filed a petition for an order of protection on behalf of his son against Appellant, the child’s mother. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order of protection against Appellant. Appellant subsequently filed a posttrial motion to set aside the order, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the circuit court’s finding of domestic abuse. The circuit court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court clearly erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence produced at the hearing to support the entry of a final order of protection against Appellant. View "Bohannon v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Shelley Kane, a resident of Texas, filed for emergency temporary guardianship of T.S., her minor niece, citing the declining health of Lois Swenson, the adoptive mother of T.S. The circuit court appointed Kane as temporary guardian. Thereafter, Swenson challenged the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. 28-65-203(f)(1), alleging that it creates a procedural law regarding service. In the meantime, Kane filed for permanent guardianship of T.S. After a final hearing, the circuit court appointed Kane as permanent guardian of T.S. and declared section 28-65-203 constitutional because its provisions are “special proceedings” pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 81. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Kane’s appointed guardianship was a special proceeding and excepted from the Rules of Civil Procedure and governed by statute. View "Swenson v. Kane" on Justia Law