598 S.W.3d 846
Ark. Ct. App.2020Background
- Amber Hrdlicka (stepmother) petitioned to adopt three minor children in September 2017; Kurt (father) consented but the children’s mother, Mollie, did not.
- After Mollie and Kurt divorced (Jan. 2016), Kurt was awarded custody; the decree provided for eight supervised visits through Change Point with possible later unsupervised visits and allowed random drug screens.
- Mollie had a history of substance abuse and multiple incarcerations (mid‑2015, Mar–Jun 2016, Aug 2016–May 2017); she testified she mailed letters and repeatedly requested supervised visits while not incarcerated.
- Kurt and Amber contend they blocked Mollie’s contact because of safety/drug concerns and intercepted or stopped letters; Mollie filed multiple contempt motions alleging denial of court‑ordered visitation.
- Amber’s adoption petition alleged Mollie had failed to communicate with the children for >1 year without justifiable cause (Ark. Code § 9‑9‑207), so her consent was unnecessary; the circuit court bifurcated the hearing, found Mollie had justifiable cause because Kurt/Amber blocked communication, denied the adoption, and denied Amber’s motion for new trial.
- Amber appealed; the appellate court affirmed, holding the trial court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous and procedural/ preservation arguments failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Amber) | Defendant's Argument (Mollie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother’s consent could be excused because she failed >1 year to communicate without justifiable cause | Mollie made only minimal efforts (a few letters, few requests, unprosecuted contempt petitions); not enough to avoid forfeiture of consent | Mollie repeatedly sought visitation and wrote letters; Kurt/Amber unjustifiably blocked communication and prevented her contact | Trial court’s finding that Mollie had justifiable cause (Kurt/Amber blocked contact) was not clearly erroneous; consent required |
| Whether denial of adoption without a best‑interest hearing violated due process | Court should have heard best‑interest evidence; bifurcation and denial amounted to de facto summary judgment | Once consent is required and was not obtained, best‑interest hearing is unnecessary; Amber did not object to bifurcation | No procedural error: parties agreed to bifurcate and best‑interest finding was unnecessary after consent denial |
| Whether Amber could pursue termination/claim that consent was being unreasonably withheld contrary to children’s best interest without pleading it | Amber contends court should have considered that Mollie unreasonably withheld consent and that issue relates to best interest | Mollie and court point to statutory requirement that termination be pleaded and served under Ark. Code § 9‑9‑220 | Issue not preserved: Amber never filed a termination petition under § 9‑9‑220, so appellate court would not consider it |
| Whether denial of new trial was abuse of discretion | Amber argued verdict contrary to preponderance and she was denied full hearing on best‑interest/withholding arguments | Court’s factual findings were within discretion; preservation and pleading failures barred additional claims | Denial of new trial was not an abuse of discretion; appellate court affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of J.N., 560 S.W.3d 806 (Ark. App. 2018) (burden and standards for proving consent is unnecessary)
- Posey v. Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 262 S.W.3d 159 (Ark. 2007) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
- Dodson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 47 S.W.3d 866 (Ark. 2001) (standard for reversing denial/grant of new trial)
- Hollis v. Hollis, 468 S.W.3d 316 (Ark. App. 2015) (best‑interest requirement in adoption proceedings)
- Westbrook v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 584 S.W.3d 258 (Ark. App. 2019) (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings)
- In re Adoption of K.F.H. & K.F.H., 844 S.W.2d 343 (Ark. 1993) (weight given to trial‑court observations in child‑welfare matters)
- Rodgers v. Rodgers, 519 S.W.3d 324 (Ark. 2017) (justifiable‑cause/credibility considerations when young children’s welfare is at issue)