Newkirk v. Hankins, 486 S.W.3d 827

Child G.N. born 2008; father David Newkirk was incarcerated (40-year sentence) when child was an infant; mother Tiffany Fields’s parental rights also terminated.
G.N. lived with guardians Jeffrey and Claressa Davis after father's incarceration; Newkirk signed consent to that guardianship in 2009.
Davises later lost housing; appellees Lisa and James Hankins became successor guardians in 2013 and petitioned to adopt G.N. in 2014.
From 2010–2015 Newkirk’s inmate account received ≈$13,985; he spent most on craft materials and canteen purchases and provided no financial support to G.N. while G.N. lived with others.
Appellees presented home-study and testimony showing a strong bond and stable, suitable home; evidence showed no contact between Newkirk and G.N. for years (limited letters, few visits).
Circuit court terminated Newkirk’s parental rights and granted adoption, finding (1) Newkirk willfully failed to support G.N. for at least one year such that his consent was not required under Ark. Code § 9-9-207, and (2) adoption was in G.N.’s best interest. Newkirk appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether father’s consent was unnecessary under Ark. Code § 9-9-207(a)(2) for failure to support	Newkirk: incarceration and absence of a court-ordered support obligation excused nonpayment; comparable to Neel v. Harrison	Hankins: court’s amended guardianship order expressly stated father was not prohibited from voluntarily providing support; father had funds and voluntarily spent them on himself, so failure was willful	Court: Consent not required — father willfully failed to provide support despite ability and court statement that voluntary support was permitted
Whether adoption was in child’s best interest despite guardianship already in place	Newkirk: adoption unnecessary because appellees already provided guardianship and child’s condition would not change	Hankins: adoption provides permanency and stability; father and other relatives have been absent and child has attachment to appellees	Court: Adoption in child’s best interest — permanency and stability for G.N. outweighed parental preference; decision not clearly erroneous

Neel v. Harrison, 220 S.W.3d 251 (Ark. Ct. App.) (parent’s lack of court-ordered support can justify nonpayment where attempts to provide were shown)
In re Adoption of A.M.C., 246 S.W.3d 426 (Ark.) (other parties’ conduct does not excuse parent’s duty to support unless it prevents performance)
Apel v. Cummings, 61 S.W.3d 214 (Ark. Ct. App.) (parental rights are conditioned on performance of duties to support and care)
Scudder v. Ramsey, 426 S.W.3d 427 (Ark.) (legislative preference for adoptive family’s solidarity may outweigh blood relatives’ interests)
Henderson v. Callis, 245 S.W.3d 174 (Ark. Ct. App.) (incarceration alone does not conclusively establish parental unfitness)