Reagan v. Dodson, 2016 Ark. App. 598

Background

Grandparents Julie and Dennis Dodson filed an ex parte emergency petition for temporary guardianship of Pamela Reagan’s three minor children after alleging Pamela’s drug use and danger to the children; a temporary guardianship was entered and extended multiple times.
The original emergency petition filed November 26, 2014, was verified but not signed by counsel; a signed amended petition was filed September 10, 2015.
Pamela’s counsel first raised the unsigned original petition and lack of service on the children’s putative father, Jeremy Pumphrey, immediately before the September 29, 2015 final hearing and moved to dismiss and later for directed verdict.
The trial court denied dismissal and directed verdict motions, held a final hearing, and granted guardianship to the Dodsons on November 2, 2015, finding Pamela unfit based on drug use, malnutrition of the children, and other evidence.
The trial court’s order did not find Pumphrey unfit and Pumphrey was never served or given notice in the record; Pamela appealed only the procedural defects (unsigned petition and lack of notice to Pumphrey) and contended the court erred by appointing a guardian without first finding Pumphrey unfit.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the unsigned original emergency petition voided the proceedings	Reagan: unsigned petition is a nullity under Carrington & Pryor and Rule 11, so court lacked jurisdiction and must dismiss	Dodsons: amended signed petition and multiple hearings cured the defect; Rule 11 remedial steps unnecessary here	Court: No error — proceedings were saved by subsequent signed amended petition and hearings; dismissal not required
Whether lack of service/notice to Pumphrey required dismissal or reversal	Reagan: Pumphrey was a parent entitled to notice and a hearing under guardianship statutes and due process; absence of notice invalidates appointment	Dodsons: issues of service/notice were not raised by Pumphrey and Reagan lacks standing to assert his constitutional right	Court: Reagan lacks standing to raise Pumphrey's due-process/service claim for him; cannot obtain relief on his behalf
Whether guardian appointment was improper because Pumphrey was not found unfit	Reagan: statutory preference for parents and constitutional parental rights required finding both parents unfit before appointing a guardian	Dodsons: same standing/record arguments; trial court made sufficient findings concerning Pamela; Pumphrey did not appeal	Court: Court declines to address because Reagan lacks standing to raise Pumphrey’s rights; guardianship affirmed
Whether trial court abused discretion in denying motions for directed verdict/dismissal based on timing of objections	Reagan: late objection should still require dismissal or other relief	Dodsons: parties and court treated merits at multiple hearings; delay in raising the signature defect waived or remedied it	Court: No abuse — late challenge could have been corrected and was cured by subsequent proceedings

Key Cases Cited

Carrington & Pryor v. Hamilton, 3 Ark. 416 (1841) (unsigned declaration is a nullity)
Henry v. Continental Cas. Co., 381 S.W.3d 802 (Ark. 2011) (de novo review of legal questions and motions to dismiss)
Sturdivant v. Sturdivant, 241 S.W.3d 740 (Ark. 2006) (de novo review of trial court’s construction of a court rule)
In Re W.L., 467 S.W.3d 129 (Ark. 2015) (probate/guardianship is a special proceeding outside general civil rules when statutes provide different procedure)
Hackleton v. Malloy, 221 S.W.3d 353 (Ark. 2006) (procedural oversights may be cured and proceedings can be considered on amended pleadings)
In Re S.H., 409 S.W.3d 307 (Ark. 2012) (parents possess fundamental liberty interest in care and custody of children)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognition of parental fundamental rights)
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (unwed fathers have fundamental due-process rights concerning custody)