2026 Ark. App. 126
Ark. Ct. App.
2026
Read the full case

Background

  • After the child’s mother died, the Owenses obtained temporary guardianship of MC, and Daniel later intervened and sought to terminate the guardianship as MC’s biological father. 1
  • The parties later followed an agreed step-up visitation plan that expanded Daniel’s contact with MC, including supervised, unsupervised, overnight, and Kansas visits. 2
  • At trial, Daniel presented testimony that he had a home, employment, counseling participation, and preparations for MC’s care, while the Owenses emphasized limited support, inconsistent contact, and financial instability. 3
  • The circuit court denied termination, finding Daniel unfit or, alternatively, that exceptional circumstances overcame the fit-parent presumption, and it set child support and visitation. 4
  • The court also ordered Daniel to pay most of the attorney ad litem fees despite allocating part to the Administrative Office of the Courts. 5

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Daniel was an unfit parent 6 Daniel argued the evidence showed present fitness and no indifference to MC. The Owenses argued Daniel’s contact, finances, and credibility showed unfitness. The finding of unfitness was clearly erroneous. 7
Whether exceptional circumstances overcame the fit-parent presumption 8 Daniel argued the record showed no extraordinary circumstances. The Owenses argued MC’s stability, counseling needs, and Daniel’s history justified guardianship. No exceptional circumstances were proved; termination was required. 9
Whether attorney ad litem fees were properly assessed to Daniel 10 Daniel argued the fee award lacked guideline and ability-to-pay findings. The Owenses defended the allocation based on the court’s discretion. The fee order was an abuse of discretion and was reversed and remanded. 11

Key Cases Cited

  • Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (fit parents are presumed to act in their children’s best interests 12)
  • Morris v. Clark, 572 S.W.3d 366 (Ark. 2019) (a fit-parent presumption applies in guardianship termination and exceptional circumstances may overcome it 13)
  • Donley v. Donley, 493 S.W.3d 762 (Ark. 2016) (guardian­ships end when a fit parent revokes consent and termination is no longer necessary 14)
  • In re Guardianship of W.L., 467 S.W.3d 129 (Ark. 2015) (supports termination when a fit parent revokes consent 15)
  • Samples v. Ward, 614 S.W.3d 830 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020) (limited contact, financial issues, and a child’s needs do not alone show unfitness or exceptional circumstances 16)
  • Simmons v. Steele, 2023 Ark. App. 386 (Ark. Ct. App. 2023) (fit-parent presumption applies and mere comparative best interests are insufficient 17)
  • Mathis v. Hickman, 687 S.W.3d 119 (Ark. Ct. App. 2024) (attorney ad litem fees may be allocated based on ability to pay when supported by the record 18)
  • Walchli v. Morris, 382 S.W.3d 683 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011) (fee awards require compliance with statutory guidelines and ability-to-pay analysis 19)
  • Moore v. Sipes, 146 S.W.3d 903 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004) (illustrates the type of egregious parental conduct that may raise fitness concerns 20)
  • Marsh v. Hoff, 692 S.W.2d 270 (Ark. Ct. App. 1985) (extreme neglectful home conditions supported custody intervention 21)
Read the full case