Hinton v. Bethany Christian Services, 462 S.W.3d 361

Peggy Hinton sought guardianship over her adult daughter Sheaquonda, who had documented mental-health issues; a Pulaski County order in April 2012 granted temporary guardianship.
In July 2012 a subsequent Pulaski County order was captioned "Order for Permanent Guardianship" but the body stated Peggy "shall be allowed to serve as temporary guardian."
In March 2014 Sheaquonda (age 32) signed a consent to adoption shortly before giving birth; the child was placed with Bethany Christian Services and adoptive parents obtained an adoption decree in Washington County.
Peggy moved to set aside the adoption; the adoptive parents moved to dismiss her motion for lack of standing.
The Washington County Circuit Court held Peggy was only a temporary guardian (temporary guardianship expires after 90 days) and therefore lacked standing to challenge the adoption; the court granted the motion to dismiss.
On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, focusing on the substance of the July 2012 order and rejecting Peggy’s claim that "temporary" was a clerical/scrivener’s error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hinton)	Defendant's Argument (Adoptive parents/Bethany)	Held
Whether Peggy had standing to set aside the adoption	The July 2012 order intended to appoint her permanent guardian; "temporary" was a scrivener's error, so she had standing	The July 2012 order explicitly made her a temporary guardian; temporary guardianship expired after 90 days so she lacked standing	Court held Peggy was only a temporary guardian and therefore lacked standing to challenge the adoption
Whether the July 2012 order should be read by caption or substance	Caption labeled it "Permanent" so it should be permanent	Substance controls; the body expressly states "temporary" and statutory requirements require specificity	Court applied substance-over-form and found the order created a temporary guardianship
Whether the designation "temporary" was a clerical error	"Temporary" was a typographical mistake and not an exercise of judicial discretion	Denominating guardianship as temporary vs permanent is judicial substance, not clerical error	Court held the difference was not a minor clerical error and declined to reform the order
Whether the trial court abused discretion in granting dismissal	Peggy contended the court erred in finding lack of standing	Adoptive parents argued lack of standing warranted dismissal	Court did not abuse discretion because the standing issue was a question of law decided correctly

Ford Motor Co. v. Nuckolls, 320 Ark. 15, 894 S.W.2d 897 (discretionary-abuse and error-of-law principles)
SMG 1054, Inc. v. Thompson, 2014 Ark. App. 524, 443 S.W.3d 574 (abuse-of-discretion where legal error present)
White v. Mattingly, 89 Ark. App. 55, 199 S.W.3d 724 (substance of order controls over caption)
Thomas v. McElroy, 243 Ark. 465, 420 S.W.2d 530 (form vs. substance in construing court orders)
Smith v. Rebsamen Med. Ctr., Inc., 2012 Ark. 441, 424 S.W.3d 876 (definition and limits of clerical error)
Farm Bur. Ins. Co. of Ark. v. Running M Farms, Inc., 366 Ark. 480, 237 S.W.3d 32 (standard for reviewing questions of law on appeal)
Ark. Hotels & Entertainment, Inc. v. Martin, 2012 Ark. 325, 423 S.W.3d 49 (de novo review of legal questions)