Waymond Brown

The case involved Jonathan Snow’s appeal from a Baxter County Circuit Court order terminating his parental rights to his infant son, A.S., who had been removed from the home shortly after birth after sustaining serious non-accidental injuries including brain bleeding, swelling, and a fractured clavicle. The Arkansas Department of Human Services had alleged dependency-neglect based on abuse and failure to protect, and later petitioned for termination citing grounds of prior abuse or neglect endangering the child, subsequent factors including Snow’s minimal compliance with services and lack of progress, and aggravated circumstances due to the parents’ refusal to account for the injuries amid pending criminal charges. After adjudicating Snow the legal father, the circuit court found all three grounds proven, determined termination was in A.S.’s best interest based on adoptability and potential harm, and entered the termination order. On appeal, Snow’s counsel filed a no-merit brief asserting no arguable grounds for reversal. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the termination after reviewing the record and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.

family law

In Absolute Care Management v. Stacy, the appellants appealed a ruling by the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission that found employee Letha Stacy was performing employment services at the time of her injury in a one-vehicle accident. The Arkansas Court of Appeals did not address the merits of the appeal. Instead, it ordered rebriefing because the appellants’ abstract, brief, and addendum failed to comply with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2. The deficiencies included missing or incorrect record page references in the abstract, an argumentative statement of the case lacking proper citations, inadequate references in the argument section, and omission of required documents such as post-hearing briefs from the addendum. The court directed the appellants to file a compliant substituted brief within fifteen days.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned whether attorney Ken Swindle could pursue a claim against State Farm to enforce an $800 attorney’s lien plus costs for work on a personal-injury matter for client Dulce Estevez. After Estevez settled directly with State Farm for $2,000 and obtained a court order declaring Swindle’s lien invalid, the trial court dismissed Swindle’s separate lawsuit against the insurer on the ground that the prior ruling barred relitigation under the doctrine of issue preclusion. The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed, holding that issue preclusion did not apply because Swindle and Estevez were not in privity; their interests were adverse, as Swindle had disclaimed representation of her while still asserting a lien, and he had not been made a party to the earlier proceeding. The court therefore remanded the case for further proceedings on Swindle’s complaint.

proceduretorts & liability

In Graves v. Hopper, appellants Luther Graves and Firstcomp Insurance appealed an Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission decision that awarded benefits to appellee Timothy Hopper for injuries from a 2013 ladder fall while working on Graves’s construction crew; the appeal raised issues of whether Hopper’s claim was time-barred under Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-702(a) and whether Graves was estopped from asserting that defense due to notice of the policy. The Arkansas Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of those arguments. Instead, it ordered supplementation of both the record and addendum within specified deadlines because essential documents—including the original circuit court complaint, the remand order to the Commission, Dixie Planting Company’s joinder motion, and Graves’s dismissal motion—were missing, preventing review of the fact-dependent notice and limitations questions. The court cited Arkansas Supreme Court Rules 3-3 and 4-2, which require inclusion of all materials necessary to confirm jurisdiction, understand the case history, and decide the appeal.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Karesha Horton’s appeal of a Scott County Circuit Court order terminating her parental rights to her infant daughter E.H., who had been removed from her custody in October 2015 after being hospitalized for failure to thrive due to improper feeding linked to Horton’s learning disabilities and limited capacity to care for the child. Arkansas Department of Human Services had provided services including a psychological evaluation, specialized parenting classes, and counseling, with the case plan goal of reunification; however, the evaluation indicated Horton was functionally illiterate, could not live independently, and required ongoing supervision for childcare. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, holding that clear and convincing evidence supported the failure-to-remedy ground under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a) because, despite Horton’s compliance with the case plan, the underlying issues preventing safe, independent parenting had not been resolved. The court declined to address the subsequent-factors ground as unnecessary and found Horton had waived her challenge to the denial of a second psychological evaluation by not properly designating the related order in her notice of appeal.

family lawprocedure

In Foster v. State, the Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed Tony Foster’s conditional guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia, stemming from drugs found during a warrantless inventory search of his vehicle. Foster had been stopped for an expired license plate, cited for multiple violations, and arrested for driving on a suspended license; the officer then arranged for the car to be towed and conducted an inventory search per Mena Police Department policy, which led to the discovery of methamphetamine inside a partially zipped bag on the passenger seat. The court affirmed the denial of Foster’s motion to suppress, holding that the arrest and towing complied with standard department policy, that the inventory search was conducted in good faith according to that policy rather than as a pretext for investigation, and that opening the bag fell within the permissible scope of such a search. The court further noted that any alleged omissions on the inventory list did not undermine the search’s validity or indicate improper handling of property.

criminal lawprocedure

In Moody v. Moody, the Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed a circuit court order resolving multiple post-divorce contempt motions between Angela Moody and Edward Moody concerning enforcement of their 2015 property-settlement agreement. The disputes centered on responsibility for real-estate taxes on the marital home, allocation of items such as flatware, lion statues, and a Kubota tractor, and allegations of contempt involving parental neglect during visitation and harassing court filings. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding the circuit court’s denial of the contempt motions due to the absence of supporting testimony or evidence while adjusting certain property rulings to align with the terms of the incorporated settlement agreement. The decision rested on the plain language of the divorce decree, the parties’ prior division of assets, and the requirement that contempt findings be supported by proof of willful disobedience.

family lawproperty

In Oliver v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, Patrice Oliver appealed the Craighead County Circuit Court’s order terminating her parental rights to her infant son J.M., who had been removed from her care in 2015 after hospital staff reported inadequate supervision and neglect. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, holding that the trial court properly found two statutory grounds—failure to remedy the conditions causing removal and subsequent factors such as drug use and noncompliance with the case plan—by clear and convincing evidence. The court also upheld the best-interest finding, relying on caseworker testimony that J.M. was adoptable and had formed a stable bond in foster care, while noting the potential harm of returning him to Oliver given her ongoing issues. The decision applied de novo review and determined that the trial court’s findings were not clearly erroneous.

family law

Matthew Dewayne Scantling appealed the Benton County Circuit Court’s denial of his 2016 petition to end his lifetime requirement to register as a sex offender. In 2001 he had pleaded guilty to first-degree violation of a minor after engaging in sexual activity with a student while he was her teacher; he received probation and jail time under the First Offender Act and was ordered to register. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that Scantling failed to satisfy the statutory criteria for termination. The court found his testimony insufficient to prove rehabilitation or that he no longer posed a community threat, noting the absence of corroborating witnesses, therapist evidence, or other proof of changed character, plus credibility concerns raised by inconsistencies and the outdated risk assessment.

criminal lawprocedure

In Wheeler v. State, the appellant was convicted of second-degree battery and third-degree domestic battering after striking his 66-year-old roommate in the face with a glass beer bottle during an April 2016 altercation at their shared residence. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed both convictions, rejecting the claim of insufficient evidence. The court held that testimony from the victim and another resident established that the appellant caused physical injury, that the victim qualified as a household member based on the living arrangements, and that the glass bottle met the definition of a deadly weapon given the manner of its use and the resulting swelling and bruising.

criminal law

Randy Grantham appealed the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission’s denial of benefits for a claimed back injury sustained on October 16, 2013, while he worked as a general manager for Hornbeck Agricultural Group, LLC. He alleged that lifting and positioning an auger at work caused a pop in his lower back, followed by leg pain, numbness, and weakness, and he sought compensation for resulting medical treatment and disability. The Commission, adopting the ALJ’s findings, ruled that Grantham failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the incident caused compensable physical harm supported by objective findings or aggravated a preexisting condition. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the Commission’s decision, particularly its reliance on Dr. Schlesinger’s medical note indicating the accident may not have caused the observed radiological abnormalities, and that the Commission properly weighed the conflicting medical evidence and witness credibility.

labor & employment

In Kirk v. Central States Manufacturing, Inc., the Arkansas Court of Appeals addressed an appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s decision affirming an administrative law judge’s denial of John Kirk’s claim for additional indemnity benefits. The Commission had ruled that the statute of limitations barred the claim and that Kirk failed to prove entitlement to further benefits following his 2006 workplace injury and subsequent medical treatment. The court did not reach the merits of Kirk’s arguments regarding the statute of limitations or its interpretation. Instead, it ordered supplementation of the record to include the parties’ briefs to the ALJ and directed rebriefing because the current record lacked those briefs and the appellant’s abstract failed to adequately summarize the testimony and proceedings. The court cited Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-711(b)(1)(A) and Arkansas Supreme Court Rules 4-2(a)(5) and (a)(8) as requiring a complete record and proper abstract for appellate review.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Bonds v. Bonds, the Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed a Pope County Circuit Court order that modified custody of two minor children by removing them from their mother, Kristina Bonds, and awarding custody to their father, Clay Bonds. The mother appealed, arguing that the trial court had erred in finding a material change in circumstances and in concluding that the change served the children's best interest. The appeals court reversed the custody modification, holding that the evidence cited by the trial court—such as the mother's boyfriend's social media activity, use of profanity, and involvement in the children's lives—had either existed or been ongoing prior to the original divorce decree and did not constitute a material change. Because no material change was established, the court did not reach the best-interest analysis.

family law

The case involved Ronald Tidwell's appeal from a Hempstead County Circuit Court order denying his motion to vacate a prior custody and child support ruling and for a new trial; Tidwell argued that the court had wrongly interpreted an agreed order as granting Lauren Rosenbaum sole custody of their child. The Arkansas Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. The court held that under Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Civil 4(b)(1), Tidwell’s motion was deemed denied by operation of law on October 21, 2016, because the trial court failed to rule within thirty days, depriving it of jurisdiction to issue its October 27 order. Tidwell’s notice of appeal referenced only that later order and did not designate the deemed denial, so the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the matter.

family lawprocedure

The case involved parents Maceo Abraham and Karri Smith appealing the Pulaski County Circuit Court’s order terminating their parental rights to their infant son, M.A., after the Arkansas Department of Human Services took emergency custody of the child in December 2015. The trial court had previously found M.A. dependent-neglected due to parental unfitness, changed the case goal to adoption, and terminated the parents’ rights on multiple statutory grounds, including their prior involuntary termination of rights to a sibling, while also determining that termination was in the child’s best interest based on adoptability and potential harm. On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed the record de novo and affirmed, holding that clear and convincing evidence supported at least one termination ground—the prior involuntary termination—and that the trial court’s best-interest finding was not clearly erroneous. The court granted the parents’ attorneys’ motions to withdraw after their no-merit briefs identified no arguable issues for reversal, and it rejected the mother’s pro se points as either covered by counsel’s brief or unpreserved.

family law

The case involved Max McKinney, Sr.’s appeal of a circuit court order terminating his parental rights to two minor children after they were removed from the home in 2015 due to parental unfitness stemming from drug use by both parents. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, holding that the circuit court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. The court noted that McKinney had only partially complied with the case plan and court orders—he visited the children and submitted to some drug screens and assessments but failed to complete parenting classes, remain drug-free, secure stable housing and employment, or demonstrate sufficient progress despite DHS services—while also being incarcerated and testing positive for methamphetamine and THC. The decision rested on statutory grounds for termination due to the children’s best interests, including the risk of potential harm if returned to McKinney and their adoptability.

family law

In Lacefield v. State, a Benton County jury convicted Joseph Thomas Lacefield of two counts of robbery and one count of aggravated robbery, resulting in an aggregate 30-year prison sentence. On appeal, Lacefield challenged the trial court's admission of gloves and related testimony, the admission of two notes into evidence, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. The Arkansas Court of Appeals declined to address the merits of these claims. Instead, it ordered rebriefing because Lacefield's abstract omitted material portions of the trial transcript, used a prohibited question-and-answer format, lacked a file-marked notice of appeal in the addendum, and failed to include essential exhibits such as surveillance videos. The court directed him to file a compliant substituted brief within fifteen days.

criminal lawprocedure

In Garcia v. Jensen Construction Co., worker Gabriel Garcia appealed after the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission denied his claim for benefits, reversing an administrative law judge’s finding that he had suffered a compensable head injury from a fall at work on March 11, 2014, while pouring concrete. Garcia slipped on rebar, was caught by his harness, and later experienced seizures, but initial medical evaluations showed no head or brain injury, and later scans and diagnoses of seizures lacked objective findings tying them to the workplace incident. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s decision, holding that Garcia failed to prove a compensable injury by a preponderance of the evidence supported by objective medical findings. The court noted that no witnesses observed the fall, Garcia had no memory of it, and precedent on idiopathic or unexplained injuries did not apply to establish a specific-incident work-related harm.

labor & employment

The case involved a dispute among Imodel Franklin, her son Nathan Franklin, and other family members over a 400-acre family farm originally placed in a revocable trust. Imodel and Nathan appealed the circuit court’s rulings that declined to impose a constructive trust on property conveyed from the trust to South Parks Properties, LLC, entered a personal judgment against Nathan for nursing-home costs owed by his father’s estate, and declined to award costs against another family member for presenting false evidence. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court in full. It held that Imodel failed to show the transfer resulted from mistake or improper conduct sufficient to support a constructive trust, that Nathan’s ambiguous testimony supported the personal judgment, and that Arkansas law provided no basis for attorney’s fees or costs on the tort-based cross-claim.

family lawpropertyproceduretorts & liability

In Dooley v. Regions Bank, Mary F. Dooley sued Regions Bank, as trustee of the B-J Trust created by her and her then-husband Jimmy Dooley, along with the trust's beneficiaries (their children), seeking a monetary interest in the trust assets. The Pope County Circuit Court dismissed the complaint, and the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that res judicata (claim preclusion) barred the action because a 2009 divorce decree had already resolved the same claim of Dooley's interest in the trust after full litigation, resulting in a final unappealed judgment that modified the trust, removed Jimmy as trustee, and appointed Regions Bank; all elements of claim preclusion were satisfied, including identical parties, claims, and a prior merits decision by a court of competent jurisdiction. The court also rejected Dooley's attempt to relitigate whether Regions Bank qualified as a lifetime beneficiary, viewing it as an improper collateral attack on the 2009 order.

family lawpropertyprocedure