Miller v. Moore, 2017 Ark. App. 619

Background

Brooke Miller (mother) signed a Consent to Adoption & Waiver of Service on Oct. 4, 2016 and the child (B.A.M.) began living with adoptive parents Jason and Manesseh Moore thereafter.
The Moores filed an adoption petition on Oct. 31, 2016; the trial court entered the adoption decree on Nov. 2, 2016 based on Brooke’s consent and representations that the father was unknown.
Brooke filed an affidavit revoking consent on Nov. 8 and a Rule 60(a) motion to vacate within 10 days (Nov. 14); she also filed a notice of appeal but did not amend it after her post-judgment motion was deemed denied.
Kerry Coleman (purported father) asserted he was adjudicated the child’s father in a prior Lonoke County proceeding, alleged he received no notice and did not consent, and filed a post-decree motion and notice of appeal.
The trial court never ruled on Brooke’s or Kerry’s post-judgment motions. The Court of Appeals dismissed Brooke’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction but remanded Kerry’s appeal for further proceedings because his claims implicate potential lack of jurisdiction and voidness of the decree.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brooke’s challenges to the adoption are reviewable on appeal	Brooke argued trial court lacked personal jurisdiction, failed to comply with statutory notice/hearing requirements, and obtained consent by fraud	Moores relied on Brooke’s signed consent and waiver and that Brooke had waived notice	Dismissed — Brooke’s post-judgment Rule 60 motion was filed within 10 days but she failed to amend her notice of appeal after the motion was deemed denied, so appellate jurisdiction is lacking
Whether Kerry’s consent was required and he received constitutionally adequate notice	Kerry argued he was an adjudicated father, did not consent, and received no notice, rendering the decree void	Moores relied on registry information and the record presented at adoption indicating father unknown	Not decided on merits; remanded — Kerry’s claim that the decree may be void for lack of his required consent and notice must be addressed by the trial court
Whether statutory/adoption-procedure defects (notice, registry search, hearing) rendered the decree void	Kerry (and Brooke originally) contended statutory requirements (e.g., §9-9-206 and §9-9-212) were not followed, violating due process	Moores relied on documentary evidence presented (registry letter) and Brooke’s waiver/consent	Remand — appellate record insufficient; trial court must determine whether noncompliance was so extensive as to void the decree
Effect of post-judgment motion timing and Rule 4 appeal timing rules	Brooke sought to extend appeal time via timely Rule 60 motion; Kerry filed his motion after the 10-day window	Moores argued procedural rules control and motions were inadequate to extend appellate deadlines	Court applied Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 4: Brooke’s failure to amend notice after deemed denial forfeited review; Kerry’s later motion not subject to deemed-denied rule, so merits remanded to trial court

Key Cases Cited

Mayberry v. Flowers, 347 Ark. 476 (discusses balance between adoption finality and due process notice to natural parents)
McCoy v. Moore, 338 Ark. 740 (clarifies which post-trial motions extend time to appeal under Rule 4)
Worsham v. Day, 2017 Ark. 192 (addresses effect of deemed-denied post-judgment motions on appellate jurisdiction)