572 S.W.3d 366
Ark.2019Background
- In 2007 Morris signed a handwritten "Legal Document" naming her sister Collie Bland or niece Jannelle Clark as guardian of her infant son J.M.; Clark later sought guardianship and signed the form.
- Clark petitioned for guardianship in 2009 alleging Morris had pending criminal charges; the circuit court appointed Clark temporary guardian and in May 2009 made Clark permanent guardian, awarding Morris limited visitation but not finding Morris unfit.
- In August 2016 Morris moved to terminate the guardianship, alleging her criminal charges had been nolle prossed and that Clark denied visitation; a hearing occurred October 26, 2016.
- The circuit court found Morris’s criminal charge had been nolle prossed and that conditions necessitating the guardianship ‘‘no longer exist,’’ but nevertheless denied termination based on its finding that continuing the guardianship was in the child’s welfare and best interest and noting residential instability and limited mother–child contact.
- Morris appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed and the Arkansas Supreme Court granted review, vacated the Court of Appeals opinion, and reversed and remanded directing termination unless guardian proves parental unfitness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a fit parent who revokes consent must meet a burden beyond showing guardianship is no longer necessary | Morris: revocation and changed circumstances suffice to terminate; court should not weigh best interests where parent not found unfit | Clark: guardianship should remain because it is in the child’s best interest despite changed circumstances | A fit parent need only show guardianship is no longer necessary; court may not deny termination based solely on best‑interest balancing absent a showing the parent is presently unfit |
| Whether the guardian must rebut the presumption that the fit parent acts in child's best interest | Morris: guardian bears burden only if alleging unfitness | Clark: court may rely on best‑interest findings to continue guardianship | To overcome the constitutional presumption the guardian must prove the parent is unfit; best‑interest alone insufficient to defeat parent’s substantive due process right |
| Proper role of best‑interest analysis in termination petitions by fit parents | Morris: best‑interest inquiry inappropriate at the outset where parent not found unfit | Clark: best‑interest factors justify continuing guardianship | Best‑interest weighing is improper initially; it applies only after guardian proves parental unfitness |
| Whether extraordinary circumstances could justify denying termination despite fit parent | Morris: no such circumstances shown | Clark: raised concerns about relocation, name change, limited contact | Court: extraordinary circumstances might overcome parental right in rare cases, but none existed here; remand to terminate guardianship |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognizes parental constitutional right and presumption that fit parent acts in child's best interest)
- Linder v. Linder, 348 Ark. 322 (Ark. 2002) (adopts presumption that a fit parent acts in child's best interest)
- Graham v. Matheny, 346 S.W.3d 273 (Ark. 2009) (interpreted termination statute to require best‑interest inquiry for minors)
- In re Guardianship of S.H., 409 S.W.3d 307 (Ark. 2012) (adopted burden‑shifting procedure when parent consented to guardianship)
- In re Guardianship of S.H., 455 S.W.3d 313 (Ark. 2015) (clarified revocation of consent meets the "no longer necessary" prong; guardian must rebut by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re W.L., 467 S.W.3d 129 (Ark. 2015) (overruled prior burden‑shifting and held a fit parent's revocation ordinarily requires termination; best‑interest cannot defeat the parental right absent unfitness)
- Donley v. Donley, 493 S.W.3d 762 (Ark. 2016) (applied W.L. rationale and remanded to apply correct standard)