468 S.W.3d 316
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- Justin (father) and Nicole (mother) divorced in 2009; Justin received custody of son E.H. born 2004. Justin married Kahla in 2010; Kahla has acted as a mother figure to E.H. for several years.
- Justin and Kahla lived with E.H. since 2012 (previously in Louisiana). Nicole was granted unsupervised visitation in 2011 but visitation became sporadic and her last in-person contact (aside from a 2014 school visit and an Easter basket) was October 2011.
- Nicole had substance-abuse and relationship problems in the past (including a DWI); appellants alleged abuse by Nicole’s boyfriend against E.H. reported to a counselor in 2011.
- Nicole had significant arrearages in child support but by 2014 was working two jobs, attending college with strong grades, attempting to send money orders, and planning nursing school.
- Justin and Kahla petitioned to adopt E.H. (May 2013), arguing Nicole’s consent was excused under Ark. Code § 9-9-207(a)(2) for failure to communicate/support and that adoption was in E.H.’s best interest. Trial court denied the petition; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law by not performing the two-part adoption analysis (consent excused and best interest) | Hollis: Court failed to address both statutory prongs and reached a best-interest conclusion without analysis | Nicole: If adoption is not in child’s best interest, analysis of excused consent is immaterial | Court: No legal error; if adoption fails the best-interest prong, it is unnecessary to rule on whether consent is excused |
| Whether Nicole’s consent was excused under Ark. Code § 9-9-207(a)(2) for at least one year of failure to significantly communicate or provide support | Hollis: Undisputed facts show Nicole failed to communicate or provide support for two years, so consent was excused | Nicole: Disputed factual issues and efforts in 2014; trial court did not need to decide because it ruled on best interest | Court: Did not decide; findings on consent were unnecessary given best-interest ruling and appellants waived request for specific findings under Rule 52(a) |
| Whether the adoption was in E.H.’s best interest (clear and convincing standard) | Hollis: Kahla has been E.H.’s mother for years, E.H. wants adoption, Nicole neglected/support issues and possible abuse justify adoption | Nicole: She improved her life, sought education/work, reestablished some contact, and E.H. had positive relationships with maternal grandparents; terminating parental bond not warranted | Court: Affirmed trial court; best-interest finding against adoption not clearly erroneous given mother’s improvements, positive school visit, grandparent bond, and trial court’s credibility assessments |
Key Cases Cited
- Ducharme v. Gregory, 435 S.W.3d 14 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review in adoption cases emphasizing trial court’s superior opportunity to judge credibility)
- In re Adoption of M.K.C., 313 S.W.3d 513 (Ark. 2009) (adoption requires clear and convincing evidence that adoption is in child’s best interest)
- In re Adoption of A.M.C., 246 S.W.3d 426 (Ark. 2007) (same)
- Dixon v. Dixon, 689 S.W.2d 556 (Ark. 1985) (adoption best-interest requirement)
- Waldrip v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 49 (Ark. Ct. App. 1992) (forfeiture of consent does not compel adoption; best-interest finding still required)
- In re Adoption of J.P., 385 S.W.3d 266 (Ark. 2011) (trial court may weigh family tensions and relationship effects in best-interest analysis)
- Smith v. Quality Ford, Inc., 920 S.W.2d 497 (Ark. 1996) (party waives Rule 52 request for findings if not timely made)