2023 Ark. App. 386
Ark. Ct. App.2023Background:
- Grandmother Terri Simmons obtained an ex parte emergency temporary guardianship in Dec. 2021 over two grandchildren (MC1 and MC2), citing mother Beverlee’s drug use and absenteeism.
- Petition alleged concerns about MC2’s care while with father Bryan Steele (hungry, head lice), but the court did not find Steele unfit when granting the temporary guardianship.
- Steele (biological father of MC2; asserts parentage/intent to raise MC1) moved to terminate the guardianship, asserting improper notice and seeking a hearing.
- At the May 3 hearing Steele testified he provides a home, has other children in his care, and disputed allegations; Simmons’s testimony relied largely on hearsay and focused on Beverlee’s parenting and drug issues.
- The circuit court terminated the temporary guardianship, finding Simmons failed to prove the legal father unfit; Simmons appealed arguing the court improperly applied the fit-parent presumption and did not require proof the parent was unfit under the statute.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Steele was entitled to the fit-parent presumption and Simmons failed to rebut it or show exceptional circumstances.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Simmons) | Defendant's Argument (Steele) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Steele was entitled to the fit-parent presumption when he moved to terminate the guardianship | The statute governing termination does not require a showing the parent is fit; guardianship should remain based on children’s best interest and necessity | Steele, not previously found unfit, is entitled to constitutional fit-parent presumption; his motion to terminate signals guardianship no longer necessary | Court: Steele entitled to presumption; once fit parent seeks termination, burden shifts to guardian to prove parent unfit or show exceptional circumstances; Simmons failed to meet burden |
| Whether Simmons produced evidence rebutting presumption or showing guardianship still necessary and in wards’ best interest | Guardianship remains necessary due to concerns about children being hungry, having lice, and Beverlee’s instability; Steele failed to provide adequate care for MC1/MC2 | Evidence did not show Steele unfit; Simmons’s proof was largely hearsay and speculative; no findings showed neglect attributable to Steele | Court: Evidence insufficient to rebut presumption or to show exceptional circumstances; guardianship termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognizes constitutional presumption that fit parents act in children’s best interests)
- Donley v. Donley, 2016 Ark. 243 (2016) (fit parent revoking or opposing guardianship supports termination as guardianship no longer necessary)
- In re Guardianship of E.M.R., 2019 Ark. 116 (2019) (fit-parent presumption applies even where parent did not consent to guardianship)
- Morris v. Clark, 2019 Ark. 130 (2019) (distinguishes parental fitness from best-interest analysis and affirms special weight for fit parent’s preference)
- Fletcher v. Scorza, 2010 Ark. 64 (2010) (parental fitness is not considered when initially creating a guardianship)