In re Guardianship of W.L., 2015 Ark. 289

guardianship over W.L. was established in December 2009 with Hydes as guardians after David Lineham and Sarah Hyde consented; W.L. resided with the Hydes who later moved to Arkansas.
David filed a petition to terminate the guardianship in December 2010; hearings occurred, and in January 2012 the court found the guardianship still necessary due to lack of support and a meaningful relationship from David.
The guardianship order denying termination was entered in April 2012; David and Danielle Lineham later married and began stable employment and a two-bedroom home.
In October 2012, Sarah Hyde filed to terminate parental guardianship; the matter was consolidated with a separate custody action in November 2012.
At the August 2013 hearing, David demonstrated increased contact with W.L., including eighteen Arkansas visits and regular calls; Sarah described hardship factors for herself.
The circuit court concluded that David remained unfit and that termination was not in W.L.’s best interest, denying petitions to terminate guardianship and for custody, which David appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether revocation of consent by a fit parent ends guardianship	Lineham contends consent revocation ends guardianship.	Guardians argue continued need or best interests keep guardianship.	Yes; a fit parent’s revocation ends the guardianship.
Whether the circuit court could retroactively declare unfitness	Lineham argues retroactive unfitness finding was unlawful.	Hydes argue prior findings supported continued unfitness.	The retroactive unfitness finding was erroneous; court had no authority.
Whether the court properly applied the termination standard to grant custody to the fit parent	Lineham asserts termination should occur and he should receive custody.	Court should retain guardianship and defer custody determinations.	Guardianship should be terminated and custody granted to Lineham; remand for custody order.

In re Guardianship of S.H. (2), 455 S.W.3d 313 (Ark. 2015) (confirms two-step burden-shifting and revocation-of-consent as termination method)
In re Guardianship of S.H. (1), 409 S.W.3d 307 (Ark. 2012) (recognizes fit parent liberty interest and presumptive best interests)
Graham v. Matheney, 346 S.W.3d 273 (Ark. 2009) (disjunctive statutory test treated as conjunctive for wards)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (recognizes parent’s fundamental rights and special weight of decisions)
Devine v. Martens, 371 Ark. 60 (Ark. 2007) (encourages parental improvement and recognizes stable steps toward custody)
Slaton v. Slaton, 956 S.W.2d 150 (Ark. 1997) (rules on Rule 60 jurisdiction to modify orders)