Holloway v. Carter, 579 S.W.3d 188

K.C. (born 2010) lived with his mother Barbara; William was listed as father but was largely absent and incarcerated from 2014 onward.
Andre Holloway (Barbara’s husband) sought to adopt K.C. in March 2018 and argued William’s consent was not required under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-9-207(a)(2).
Andre alleged William had, for at least one year, significantly failed without justifiable cause to (1) communicate with K.C. and/or (2) provide for K.C.’s care and support.
Evidence showed William made virtually no direct contact with K.C. from 2014–2018 (no cards/gifts, minimal phone contact that did not reach K.C., sporadic prison visits initiated by others).
The circuit court denied the petition, finding Andre failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that William’s consent was unnecessary, concluding William’s failure to communicate was not without adequate excuse.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the trial court’s finding on failure to communicate was clearly erroneous and remanded for a best-interest determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether William’s consent to adoption was unnecessary because he failed for ≥1 year to communicate with child without justifiable cause	Andre: William’s near-total lack of direct contact from 2014–2018 shows a significant, unjustified failure to communicate	William: Incarceration and later disputes (refusal to sign passport) provided adequate excuse for lack of communication	Reversed trial court; court held evidence was clear and convincing that William significantly failed to communicate without adequate excuse
Whether William’s failure to support likewise made consent unnecessary	Andre: alternatively argued failure to provide support for ≥1 year	William: did not successfully rebut support argument at trial (court declined to find clear and convincing failure)	Court did not decide on support because reversal on communication alone sufficed; remanded to determine child’s best interests

In re Adoption of Lybrand, 329 Ark. 163 (clarifies "failed significantly" and defines failure without justifiable cause)
Racine v. Nelson, 2011 Ark. 50 (places clear-and-convincing burden on party seeking adoption without parental consent)
In re Adoption of S.C.D., 358 Ark. 51 (adoption proceedings reviewed de novo; trial-court credibility afforded weight)
Rodgers v. Rodgers, 2017 Ark. 182 (parent’s inability to visit does not excuse failure to communicate by other means)
In re Adoption of J.N., 2018 Ark. App. 467 (sporadic, infrequent contact can constitute a significant failure to communicate)
A.R. v. Brown, 103 Ark. App. 1 (procedural standard for de novo review in adoption cases)
Fox v. Nagle, 2011 Ark. App. 178 (trial judge’s observations accorded weight in child-welfare findings)
Ray v. Sellers, 82 Ark. App. 530 (one-year period may be any year between birth and petition filing)