Marshall v. Rubright
2017 Ark. App. 548
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- James Marshall and Valerie (mother) divorced in 2012; their son B.M. (born 2008) lived with Valerie. James had visitation and a child-support obligation.
- James engaged in threatening conduct toward Valerie and B.M., received orders of protection, pled guilty to terroristic threatening, and was incarcerated in 2016.
- Valerie married Seth Rubright in 2013; Seth filed to adopt B.M. in July 2016, alleging James’s consent was unnecessary under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-9-207 because James failed to communicate with or support the child for a year.
- The circuit court amended the petition to allege a one-year child-support failure and granted the adoption after an October 2016 hearing; a written decree found James’s consent unnecessary because he substantially failed to communicate and to support B.M. for one year and that those failures were without justifiable cause.
- On appeal James argued the court erred by (1) not making specific credibility findings and (2) finding he failed to communicate for one year, citing orders of protection as justification.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (a) no Rule or statute required the specific credibility findings James sought and (b) James failed to challenge two independent alternative bases (consent unreasonably withheld and failure to support) that independently justified the adoption decree.
Issues
| Issue | Marshall's Argument | Rubright's/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court erred by not making specific credibility findings | Court should have identified specific testimony/evidence as credible per Martini | No statute or rule required detailed credibility findings; Marshall did not request Rule 52 findings | Court: No error; appellate court will presume necessary findings absent a timely Rule 52 request |
| Whether Marshall failed to communicate with B.M. for one year without justifiable cause | Orders of protection and Valerie barred contact; thus he had justifiable cause | Evidence showed prolonged lack of contact; court found failure without justifiable cause | Court did not reach merits because Marshall failed to attack alternative bases; issue not dispositive |
| Whether Marshall’s consent was being unreasonably withheld (alternative basis) | Not argued on appeal | Circuit court found consent unreasonably withheld contrary to child’s best interest | Affirmed; Marshall did not challenge this independent ground on appeal |
| Whether Marshall significantly failed to provide support for one year (alternative basis) | Admitted nonpayment Feb–Aug 2014 and claimed he later paid; did not develop argument on appeal | Court found substantial failure to support Aug 2013–Aug 2014 without justifiable cause | Affirmed; Marshall failed to sufficiently challenge this ground on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Martini v. Price, 507 S.W.3d 486 (Ark. 2016) (addressed findings but did not impose an independent duty to make detailed credibility findings absent rule/statute)
- Chaffin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 471 S.W.3d 251 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (appellate presumption that circuit court made necessary findings when specific findings not required)
- May v. State, 509 S.W.3d 14 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (will not reverse when appellant fails to attack independent alternative grounds)
- Orintas v. Point Lookout Property Owners Ass’n, 476 S.W.3d 174 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (issues not developed on appeal may be affirmed)