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

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.
2