Owen v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.

2014 Ark. App. 648
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
DecidedNovember 12, 2014
DocketCV-14-632
StatusPublished

This text of 2014 Ark. App. 648 (Owen v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Owen v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2014 Ark. App. 648 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 648

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-14-632

Opinion Delivered November 12, 2014 ANGELA OWEN APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT V. [NO. JV-2013-225]

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES and MINOR HONORABLE MARK HEWETT, CHILD JUDGE APPELLEES AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

RHONDA K. WOOD, Judge

The circuit court terminated Angela Owen’s parental rights to her child, I.K. Owens’s

counsel filed a no-merit brief and motion to withdraw. No pro se points have been filed.

We affirm the court’s termination order and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

The Department of Human Services filed a petition in February 2014 to terminate

Owens’s parental rights. In April 2014, the court held a permanency-planning hearing,

which Owens attended. The termination hearing took place later in the month, but

Owens never appeared. After hearing testimony, the court found that the Department

had proved five statutory grounds and that termination was in I.K.’s best interest. It

subsequently granted the petition to terminate Owens’s parental rights.

1 Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 648

If appellate counsel thinks that an appeal from a termination-of-parental-rights order is

meritless, he or she may file a no-merit brief. Linker-Flores v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs.,

359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004); Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(i) (2014). The brief must list

all adverse rulings and explain why none provide a meritorious ground for reversal. Ark.

Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(i)(1)(A). Here, there were two adverse rulings: the termination order and

one evidence-based objection. Counsel has adequately explained why neither provides a

meritorious ground to appeal. We grant the motion to withdraw and affirm the

termination order by memorandum opinion. See In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark.

App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).

Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.

GLOVER and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.

Leah Lanford, Arkansas Public Defender Commission, Dependency-Neglect Appellate

Division, for appellant.

No response.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
194 S.W.3d 739 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2004)
In Re Memorandum Opinions
700 S.W.2d 63 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2014 Ark. App. 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owen-v-ark-dept-of-human-servs-arkctapp-2014.