T.S.B. v. Robinson, 586 S.W.3d 650

Background

T.S.B., a minor in a family-in-need-of-services (FINS) case, was initially placed with her maternal grandmother, Elizabeth Robinson.
Mother (Tammy Robinson‑Wright) filed a petition to change custody in August 2017; the petition lacked a certificate of service and the record showed no direct proof of service on the child or AAL.
The grandmother responded and her response included a certificate of service showing service on the AAL who had been appointed earlier (Suzi Meller); a different AAL appeared at the custody hearing.
At the hearing the AAL actively participated, made recommendations, engaged in custody negotiations, and entered an agreed custody order without objecting to service defects or to diversion of the child’s survivor’s annuity.
On appeal the AAL raised four claims: lack of service/notice, deprivation of liberty/property (annuity) without due process, statutory ambiguity requiring service on minors under ten, and equal‑protection violation from denial of access to juvenile records.
The court concluded the AAL waived or failed to preserve these claims by participating without timely objection and by not raising certain arguments below, and affirmed the custody order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Was the custody order void for lack of service?	Service was not proved on T.S.B. or AAL, so judgment is void for lack of notice.	AAL appeared and actively participated at hearing and never objected to service; defects are waived.	Waived: active participation without objection cured service defect; judgment affirmed.
2. Was due process violated by diversion of the survivor’s annuity?	Annuity benefits were redirected without notice; this deprived T.S.B. of property/due‑process rights.	AAL was present when benefits were redirected and made no contemporaneous objection.	Not preserved: no timely objection at hearing; appellate court will not consider.
3. Does Ark. Code §9‑27‑312 require service of change‑of‑custody petitions on minors under ten?	Statute is ambiguous and should be read to require service on minors under ten.	Issue was never raised below or cited in posthearing filings.	Not preserved: argument raised for first time on appeal; court declines to consider.
4. Were equal‑protection rights violated by denying AAL access to juvenile records?	AAL was denied access to relevant records contrary to §9‑27‑316(f), creating unequal access compared to prosecutors/DHS attorneys.	AAL complained about record access posttrial but did not raise an equal‑protection claim at the hearing; scope of arguments below did not include this theory.	Not preserved: no specific equal‑protection argument presented to trial court; issue not considered.

Key Cases Cited

Sides v. Kirchoff, 316 Ark. 680, 874 S.W.2d 373 (judgment without notice is void)
Trelfa v. Simmons First Bank of Jonesboro, 98 Ark. App. 287, 254 S.W.3d 775 (appearance without objection waives service defects)
Pender v. McKee, 266 Ark. 18, 582 S.W.2d 929 (defects in process cured by appearance without objection)
Burrell v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 41 Ark. App. 140, 850 S.W.2d 8 (same)
Hunt v. Perry, 357 Ark. 224, 162 S.W.3d 891 (must object at first opportunity to preserve issue for appeal)
Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Foote, 341 Ark. 105, 14 S.W.3d 512 (preservation requirement for appellate review)
Andrews v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 22, 388 S.W.3d 63 (appellate review limited to arguments made below)