493 S.W.3d 762
Ark.2016Background
- In 2012 Kisha Donley obtained temporary guardianship of M.B. (Temika’s daughter) after findings Temika was "not fit"; a permanent guardianship was entered by consent on July 2, 2012, without a separate unfitness finding.
- In October 2013 Temika revoked her consent and filed to terminate the guardianship; a hearing was held July 3, 2014.
- Evidence at the termination hearing included testimony from a psychologist treating M.B. (diagnosis: PTSD from exposure to domestic abuse), testimony about Temika’s counseling and progress, and Facebook screenshots showing Temika’s messages to the mother’s former partner, Donald Beasley.
- The circuit court granted Kisha’s motion for directed verdict, finding Temika failed to show the guardianship was no longer necessary or that termination was in M.B.’s best interest; the court of appeals affirmed.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court granted review, held the trial court erred by not applying the fit-parent presumption after the permanent guardianship entry (i.e., treating the temporary unfitness finding as continuing), reversed in part and remanded to apply the correct legal standard, but affirmed admission of the Facebook evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Temika) | Defendant's Argument (Kisha) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal standard / fit-parent presumption: whether the trial court could treat the earlier temporary-order unfitness finding as controlling after entry of a permanent guardianship and thus deny the fit-parent presumption | The temporary unfitness finding expired when the parties consented to and the court entered a permanent guardianship; after July 2, 2012 Temika was a fit parent entitled to the fit-parent presumption and to shift the burden to the guardian once she revoked consent | Trial court treated earlier unfitness as continuing and required Temika to prove both that guardianship was no longer necessary and that termination was in the child’s best interest | Supreme Court: temporary order expired when permanent guardianship was entered; the fit-parent presumption applied after July 2, 2012. Trial court erred by applying a conjunctive standard instead of recognizing that revocation by a fit parent meets the "no longer necessary" statutory prong and shifts the burden to the guardian (reversed and remanded) |
| Directed verdict: whether granting Kisha’s directed-verdict motion was proper | The directed verdict was improper because Temika, as a fit parent who revoked consent, should have been afforded the presumption and the burden should have shifted to Kisha | The trial court argued Temika failed to prove termination was warranted under the standards it applied | Court reversed the directed verdict ruling for the same reason as the first issue and remanded for application of the correct standard |
| Facebook evidence admissibility / authentication | Facebook screenshots were not properly authenticated given Temika’s testimony that she might not have authored some posts and that Beasley could have accessed her account | Kisha maintained the screenshots were authentic and admissible; Temika identified the account name and photos and admitted to at least one post | Court held trial court did not abuse its discretion admitting the screenshots: Temika’s testimony connecting the account and photos provided sufficient authentication under Ark. R. Evid. 901 (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognition of parents’ fundamental liberty interest and presumption that fit parents act in their child’s best interest)
- Graham v. Matheny, 346 S.W.3d 273 (Ark. 2009) (standard of review and discussion of guardianship termination principles)
- Linder v. Linder, 72 S.W.3d 841 (Ark. 2002) (adoption of fit-parent presumption)
- In re Guardianship of W.L., 467 S.W.3d 129 (Ark. 2015) (statutory interpretation of termination grounds and discussion of burden-shifting)
- In re Guardianship of S.H. (1), 409 S.W.3d 307 (Ark. 2012) (two-step burden-shifting framework for fit parents who consented to guardianship)
- In re Guardianship of S.H. (2), 455 S.W.3d 313 (Ark. 2015) (clarifying that revocation of consent meets "no longer necessary" and guardians must rebut with clear and convincing evidence)