2020 Ark. App. 568
Ark. Ct. App.2020Background
- Stepparents Brandie and Jeremy Rogers filed to adopt Brandie’s two minor children on November 6, 2018; both children consented to the adoption.
- Brince Plymale is the biological father; he and Brandie divorced in 2015. The divorce decree contemplated equal time and expressly relieved Plymale of a child-support obligation under that decree.
- Subsequent orders awarded custody to Brandie and, on August 16, 2018, ordered Plymale to pay $1,297/month in child support effective June 1, 2018; OCSE records show payments began (and were sometimes missed) after September 2018.
- Trial court found Plymale had failed for at least one year to provide care and support and therefore that his consent to the adoption was not required; the court also found the adoption to be in the children’s best interest.
- On appeal the Arkansas Court of Appeals held that Plymale’s pre–June 1, 2018 nonpayment was legally justified by the divorce decree relieving him of a support obligation, so the one‑year statutory period had not run when the petition was filed five months later.
- The appellate court reversed and dismissed the adoption petition on the consent ground and therefore did not reach the best‑interest determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rogers) | Defendant's Argument (Plymale) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent is unnecessary because father failed to provide support for at least one year under Ark. Code §9‑9‑207(a)(2)(ii) | Plymale failed to financially support the children for the requisite one‑year period and missed OCSE payments, so consent not required | Plymale was expressly relieved of an obligation to pay support by the divorce decree until June 1, 2018; nonpayment before that date was justified, so one‑year period had not elapsed | Reversed: appellate court held nonpayment before June 1, 2018 was justified by the divorce decree; one‑year period had not run when petition filed; consent was required |
| Whether adoption is in the children’s best interest | Adoption is in children’s best interest because Rogerses provided primary financial and day‑to‑day support and parent relationship was rocky | Adoption is not in children’s best interest; Plymale maintains parenting relationship and opposed adoption | Not addressed (appeal resolved on consent ground) |
Key Cases Cited
- Newkirk v. Hankins, 2016 Ark. App. 186, 486 S.W.3d 827 (standard of review for adoption and burden to prove consent unnecessary)
- French v. Hoelzeman, 2020 Ark. App. 543, 614 S.W.3d 850 (failure‑to‑support excused where court decree expressly relieved parent of obligation)
- In re Adoption of Glover, 288 Ark. 59, 702 S.W.2d 12 (once support issue is decided by court, the court‑imposed duty circumscribes the general duty to support)
- Holloway v. Carter, 2019 Ark. App. 330, 579 S.W.3d 188 (appellee must prove lack of consent unnecessary; nonconsenting parent may show justifiable cause)
- In re Adoption of T.A.D., 2019 Ark. App. 510, 588 S.W.3d 858 (definition of justifiable cause as nonwillful/nonintentional failure)
- Neel v. Harrison, 93 Ark. App. 424, 220 S.W.3d 251 (a parent relieved by decree of a support obligation may have nonpayment treated as justified)