Ingle v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
449 S.W.3d 283
Ark.2014Background
- DHS obtained an emergency custody order for C.N. in May 2012 after Ingle's arrest on drug charges.
- C.N. was placed with Neal, and the circuit court declared C.N. dependent-neglected, keeping custody with Neal.
- At the six-month review, the circuit court awarded Neal permanent custody and closed the case; On appeal, this court remanded with instruction to return custody to Ingle, subject to petitions addressing serious concerns.
- The mandate directing return to Ingle was issued February 19, 2014; DHS filed an emergency hearing petition on February 28, 2014, alleging serious concerns during the pendency of the appeal.
- A hearing occurred (with DHS and Neal’s testimony and evidence about Ingle’s alleged issues, including criminal charges and mental-disease assertion); Neal and Ingle testified about visitation and safety concerns.
- The circuit court found it unsafe to place C.N. with Ingle and incorporated findings in orders of April 18 and April 28, 2014; the decision was appealed by Ingle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the circuit court comply with the remand mandate? | Ingle contends the mandate required immediate return to her custody and orally exceeded when DHS petitioned. | DHS argues remand allowed addressing serious concerns before return, so petition was proper. | No merit in mandate violation; court followed remand directives. |
| Were the juvenile-code procedures followed on remand? | Ingle asserts DHS needed to initiate a new petition with probable-cause findings to remove C.N.. | Issue not preserved; no contemporaneous objection below; court not required to address. | Issue not preserved; not reaching juvenile-code compliance. |
| Are the circuit court's factual findings clearly erroneous? | Ingle claims the findings do not support returning C.N. to Neal and keeping him away from her. | DHS asserts evidence shows serious concerns about Ingle’s fitness and safety of C.N. with Ingle. | Findings not clearly erroneous; substantial evidence supported safety concerns. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 375 Ark. 164 (2008) (mandate interpretation and execution in lower courts)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Regions Bank Trust Dep’t, 356 Ark. 494 (2004) (mandate compliance and law-of-the-case principles)
- Dolphin v. Wilson, 335 Ark. 113 (1998) (lower court bound by appellate mandate; limited jurisdiction)
- Pro-Comp Mgmt., Inc. v. R.K. Enters., LLC, 366 Ark. 463 (2006) (directions by appellate court must be followed exactly)
- Smith v. AJ & K Operating Co., 365 Ark. 229 (2006) (judicial execution of appellate judgment and mandate)
- City of Dover v. Barton, 342 Ark. 521 (2000) (lower court jurisdiction limited by appellate mandate)
- Brimson v. Brimson, 228 Ark. 562 (1958) (jurisdiction principles under appellate mandates)