Wilson v. Wilson

Citations: 2013 Ark. App. 759; 431 S.W.3d 369; 2013 WL 6665454; 2013 Ark. App. LEXIS 793Docket: CV-13-365

Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; December 18, 2013; Arkansas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Sarah Wilson appeals the Ouachita County Circuit Court's order granting permanent guardianship of her daughter, EJW, to Randy and Donna Wilson, the child's paternal grandparents. The child's father, Billy Wilson, did not contest the guardianship and is not appealing. Sarah argues that the court erred in determining EJW required permanent guardianship and that placement with the grandparents was in her best interest. The grandparents maintain that the trial court’s decision is well-supported by evidence and in accordance with Arkansas law.

The appellate court reviews guardianship cases de novo but will only reverse a trial court's factual findings if they are clearly erroneous. A finding is deemed clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is left with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made, taking into account the trial court's superior position to assess witness credibility. Particularly in custody cases, appellate courts afford heightened deference to the trial court's determinations.

EJW, being under the age of majority, is classified as an incapacitated person under Arkansas law. The purpose of guardianship is to promote and protect the well-being of such individuals. To appoint a guardian, the court must establish that the person is either a minor or incapacitated, that guardianship is necessary to protect their interests, and that the proposed guardian is qualified. While there is a statutory preference for natural parents in guardianship cases, this preference does not guarantee an automatic appointment; the court has discretion to assess the parent's qualifications and suitability. The best interest of the child is the primary consideration in these proceedings, and parental fitness is not a required determination when comparing a natural parent to a third-party guardian. Prior cases suggesting a fitness standard have been overruled, affirming that the natural-parent preference is merely one factor in evaluating the most suitable guardian.

Any decision regarding the appointment of a parent or relative must prioritize the child's best interests. Evidence presented to the trial court indicates that Sarah, in her early twenties, has three children—two sons (SC and CM) and a daughter (EJW)—fathered by different men. Sarah's husband, Billy, also in his twenties, is the biological father of EJW and a stepfather to the boys. Billy has a documented history of violence, criminal behavior, and drug addiction, including instances of physical abuse towards Sarah. Despite multiple reports of his abusive actions and her efforts to obtain protective orders, Sarah consistently returned to him. 

In September 2012, Sarah left ten-month-old EJW with her paternal grandparents and admitted herself to a hospital for stress and anxiety, where she was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. After a week, she briefly saw her children before leaving them again to visit a friend. Concerned about Sarah's unstable living conditions and her relationship with Billy, the paternal grandparents petitioned for guardianship over EJW in early October 2012. They cited the poor state of Sarah's living situation and her chaotic life with Billy as reasons for their concerns.

During the trial, which Sarah attended pro se despite being late, she acknowledged Billy's abusive behavior but claimed she was ready for divorce. The grandparents testified that they often cared for EJW and expressed worries about her health and safety due to Sarah's living environment, which was reported to be unsanitary. The trial court granted temporary guardianship to the grandparents on October 12, 2012, allowing Sarah and Billy reasonable supervised visitation. Following this hearing, Sarah moved briefly to northwest Arkansas but soon returned to live with her mother in Camden.

Sarah opposed the temporary and permanent guardianship of her child, EJW, in a formal response filed on November 12, 2012, after hiring legal representation. She argued that EJW received WIC benefits and Medicaid, asserting that guardianship should be terminated. A two-day final hearing occurred on December 27 and 28, 2012, where Sarah testified about her living situation, her income from caregiving, and her limited child support. She claimed her grandmother's home was cleaned and repaired, supported by photographs, and discussed her use of prescribed narcotic medications for her health conditions. Sarah had limited supervised visitation with EJW and expressed concern that Randy and Donna, the paternal grandparents, sought to take EJW without justification. 

Testimony from Sarah’s mother indicated that she supported Sarah financially in exchange for caregiving. Witnesses, including friends and Sarah’s pastor, testified to her parenting abilities. In contrast, the paternal grandparents asserted a strong bond with EJW and their capability to provide a safe home, citing concerns over Sarah and Billy's suitability as parents due to domestic violence and Billy's incarceration and drug issues.

After reviewing the evidence and testimonies, the trial judge issued a letter opinion on December 31, 2012, affirming the grandparents' suitability as guardians while acknowledging the statutory parental preference is subservient to the child's best interests. The letter concluded that despite witness testimonies portraying Sarah as a suitable parent, her private life was chaotic, marked by repeated domestic violence, undermining her credibility. Consequently, the court determined that granting guardianship to the grandparents was in EJW's best interest, formalizing the decision on January 2, 2013, while allowing Sarah and Billy reasonable supervised visitation with EJW.

Sarah filed a notice of appeal regarding the order for permanent guardianship of her child, EJW. She argues two main points for reversal: first, that permanent guardianship was unjustified since the issues leading to temporary guardianship were resolved; second, that it was not in EJW's best interest to be placed with anyone other than her, the biological mother. The court found that Sarah did not demonstrate clear error in the circuit court’s findings and asserted that the trial court adequately considered the natural-parent preference in guardianship laws. 

Sarah acknowledged ongoing issues in her relationship with Billy, which hindered her qualification as a suitable guardian. Additionally, she contended that naming the grandparents as guardians separated EJW from her half-siblings; however, the court noted that the reluctance to separate siblings is less applicable to half-siblings. The trial judge prioritized EJW’s best interest, and the appellate review did not reveal clear error in the decision. 

Sarah also claimed the trial court’s opinion failed to explicitly mention "best interest" or outline relevant factors, but the appellate court stated that such specific wording is unnecessary if the child’s best interest is evident. Furthermore, Sarah raised due-process concerns regarding her parental rights, but these arguments were not preserved for review as they were introduced for the first time on appeal. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's application of Arkansas case law and statutes, finding no clear error in its findings.