Manohar v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 482
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Newborn Y.M. was taken into DHS emergency custody after mother and child tested positive for methamphetamine; Lakhraj Manohar was listed as putative father.
- August 2015 adjudication found Y.M. dependent-neglected, declared Manohar the biological and legal father, and ordered services for him.
- DNA testing later showed a 0.00% probability that Manohar was Y.M.’s biological father; DHS subsequently filed to terminate parental rights and later filed a petition specifically asserting Manohar was a non-biological legal father.
- At the January 2017 hearing the circuit court, citing DNA results and earlier false testimony, found Manohar was neither biological nor legal father and dismissed him from the case before resolving termination merits.
- Manohar appealed the dismissal; DHS and Manohar raised arguments about notice, due process, and proper procedure; the court declined to reach issues not preserved below and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Manohar) | Defendant's Argument (DHS / Ad Litem) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether the court could revisit and reverse its prior adjudication that Manohar was Y.M.’s legal and biological father (res judicata/claim preclusion) | The adjudication was a final, appealable order that was not appealed, so the paternity finding is final and relitigation is barred by res judicata. | Court may reconsider paternity; Manohar failed to raise res judicata below, so argument not preserved. | Affirmed: appeal waiver — res judicata argument not preserved; court did not address merits of preclusion. |
| 2) Whether the court erred by sua sponte finding Manohar not the father and dismissing him without notice or a paternity challenge/motion | Court improperly altered paternity finding without notice, motion, or evidence presented at hearing; violated Paternity Code procedures and Manohar’s due-process rights. | Manohar had notice of DNA results and termination petition; dismissal follows precedent once court determines a man is not the father. | Not considered on appeal: due-process/notice argument not preserved; dismissal affirmed under precedent. |
| 3) Whether DHS should have proceeded to terminate rights on non-biological-father ground instead of dismissal | Manohar argues dismissal precluded his opportunity to show fitness; DHS argues termination on non-biological-father ground is proper mechanism when legal parent is not biological. | DHS: termination petition put Manohar on notice of non-biological-father theory and was appropriate avenue. | Court followed precedent (Howerton) that once a person is not the father he has no parental rights to terminate and may be dismissed. |
| 4) Preservation of issues on appeal | Manohar contends substantive errors warrant reversal. | DHS and ad litem emphasize Manohar failed to raise res judicata and due-process objections below. | Court will not consider arguments raised for first time on appeal; affirmance based on preservation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 449 S.W.3d 721 (Ark. App. 2014) (reversal where termination proceeded as to a man later shown not to be the biological father)
- Howerton v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 506 S.W.3d 872 (Ark. App. 2016) (once court finds a man is not the biological father, he has no parental rights to terminate and should be dismissed)
- Strickland v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 287 S.W.3d 633 (Ark. App. 2008) (standard of de novo review for termination orders)
- Hardy v. Hardy, 380 S.W.3d 354 (Ark. 2011) (elements of claim-preclusion facet of res judicata)