Scudder v. Ramsey
2013 Ark. 115
| Ark. | 2013Background
- Amanda Scudder (adult daughter of Raylinia Ramsey) shares a daughter, P.S., with Raylinia’s family turmoil dating to 2006 when Amanda was a teen.
- Raylinia obtained a court-ordered grandparent visitation under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-13-103(b)(2) in 2011 with specified weekday and weekend schedules.
- Amanda sought adoption by the O’Banions; adoption proceedings occurred in 2011, and the adoption decree was entered November 22, 2011, after Raylinia’s visitation matter was heard.
- The adoption decree did not explicitly terminate Raylinia’s visitation rights, and the trial court later held Amanda in contempt for denying visitation and for participating in the adoption.
- The circuit court awarded Raylinia attorney’s fees and costs related to the contempt proceeding; it also denied termination of visitation.
- On appeal, the supreme court reverses the visitation termination ruling, affirms contempt, and reverses and remands the attorney’s fees award due to inclusion of adoption-related fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of adoption on grandparent visitation | Ramsey argues visitation terminated with adoption; Scudder contends rights survive only by statute. | Scudder argues § 9-9-215 terminates biological-relations-derived rights; adoption cuts off visitation. | Adoption terminates Ramsey’s visitation rights. |
| Contempt finding and sanctions | Ramsey contends Scudder willfully denied visitation; contempt appropriate and sanctions proper. | Scudder claims she acted within adoption process rights and cannot be held in contempt. | Civil contempt affirmed; sanctions (jail term suspended on compliance) upheld; fees awarded. |
| Attorney’s fees scope in contempt proceeding | Ramsey seeks fees for contempt matter; adoption-related fees possibly recoverable. | Scudder argues fees must relate to contempt; adoption fees not recoverable in contempt. | Fees awarded; remanded for redaction to exclude adoption-related hours. |
Key Cases Cited
- Suster v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 314 Ark. 92, 858 S.W.2d 122 (1993) (grandparent visitation derivative from parent’s rights; termination of parental rights ends grandparent rights)
- Vice v. Andrews, 328 Ark. 573, 945 S.W.2d 914 (1997) (public policy favoring adoptive family over biological relatives; effects of adoption on visitation)
- Wilson v. Wallace, 274 Ark. 48, 622 S.W.2d 164 (1981) (adoption policies bolster adoptive family rights and may terminate prior family ties)
- Poe v. Case, 263 Ark. 488, 565 S.W.2d 612 (1978) (strong public policy in adoption statutes to strengthen adoptive relationships and terminate prior kinship)
- Bethany v. Jones, 2011 Ark. 67, 378 S.W.3d 731 (2011) (biological link considerations in modern custody/visitation analyses)
- Robinson v. Ford-Robinson, 362 Ark. 232, 208 S.W.3d 140 (2005) (context of familial relationships and visitation considerations post-separation)