Wilson v. Golen
427 S.W.3d 723
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- B.W. was born January 24, 2011, to Laura Stevens and Brock Wilson and placed in DHS foster care after a positive neonatal drug test.
- Mike and Jeanean Wilson, paternal grandfather and grandmother, petitioned to intervene and later sought to adopt B.W.; appellees Mark and Jessica Golen fostered B.W. and had adopted his half-brother A.G.
- The Wilsons began overnight visitation in December 2011; DHS sought termination of parental rights in January 2012 and both sets of petitioners filed adoption petitions.
- The court allowed use of appellees’ prior home study (from A.G.’s adoption) to support the current petition; a DHS caseworker testified in favor of appellees’ adoption and praised their care.
- The circuit court conducted a March 27, 2012 hearing; witnesses testified to financial stability, care, religious upbringing, and time spent with B.W., with mixed emphasis on relative placement vs. nonrelative
- On April 10, 2012, the court granted appellees’ adoption petition, citing time with B.W. and other factors as supportive; the adoption decree was entered May 16, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over home study filing | Wilsons say lack of a current home study deprives court of jurisdiction | Golen asserts court had jurisdiction; error not preserved | Jurisdiction not preserved; affirmed without reaching merits |
| Best-interest determination and weight of factors | Wilsons claim best-interest factors favored appellees erroneously | Golen argues trial court properly weighed factors and substantial evidence supports adoption | Court affirmed best-interest finding; not clearly against the preponderance |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. Edwards, 2009 Ark. 580 (Ark. Supreme Court 2009) (establishes subject-matter jurisdiction framework for adoption)
- Ark. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Jones, 248 S.W.3d 507 (Ark. App. 2007) (preserves appellate review of home-study arguments not raised below)
- Carr v. Millar, 184 S.W.3d 470 (Ark. App. 2004) (forbids raising new arguments on appeal absent preservation)
- Luebker v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 217 S.W.3d 172 (Ark. App. 2005) (clear-and-convincing burden for best-interest in custodial matters)