Terrell v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

Citations: 2015 Ark. App. 582; 474 S.W.3d 90; 2015 Ark. App. LEXIS 670Docket: CV-15-545

Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; October 21, 2015; Arkansas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Michael Terrell appealed the termination of his parental rights to his children, A.P. and A.T., arguing that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) initiated emergency custody proceedings in November 2013 after the children were left with an inadequate caretaker, and their mother tested positive for multiple drugs. The trial court granted emergency custody on November 20, 2013, and subsequent hearings determined the children were dependent-neglected due to neglect, abandonment, and parental unfitness. In December 2014, DHS sought to terminate the parental rights of both parents. Prior to the termination hearing, the children’s paternal grandparents attempted to intervene, claiming that Mississippi had jurisdiction based on a guardianship petition they filed there. However, the trial court ruled it had jurisdiction and denied the intervention motion. The court affirmed the termination of parental rights, citing the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) as the governing framework for such matters. Under the UCCJEA, Arkansas was determined to have jurisdiction since it was the children’s home state at the time of the proceedings, as they were residing there with their mother prior to the case. The court emphasized that a child-custody proceeding, including termination of parental rights, falls under the UCCJEA, which establishes jurisdiction based on the children’s significant connections to the state and the availability of substantial evidence regarding their care and relationships.

Jurisdiction for child custody determinations in Arkansas hinges on specific criteria outlined in sections 9-19-201 and 9-19-204. Courts with jurisdiction under these sections may decline to exercise it if Arkansas is deemed the more appropriate forum. Additionally, no other state court may have jurisdiction based on the criteria specified. The exclusive jurisdictional basis for Arkansas courts to make custody determinations is detailed in subsection (a), which states that physical presence or personal jurisdiction over a party or child is not required. The term "home state" refers to the state where a child lived with a parent or guardian for at least six consecutive months before a custody proceeding begins.

In a referenced case, the appellant challenged evidence that the children had been in Arkansas for the required six months prior to custody being taken. The court clarified that the jurisdictional provisions apply only if the conditions of section 9-19-204 are not met, which pertains to temporary emergency jurisdiction. This section allows a court to assume jurisdiction if a child is in Arkansas and has been abandoned or is in danger of mistreatment. If no previous custody determination exists, any temporary custody determination remains effective until a court with proper jurisdiction intervenes.

The court found that, despite the children moving from Louisiana to Arkansas only four months prior to custody being taken, there was no credible custody order from Louisiana. Consequently, Arkansas was recognized as the children's home state, and the trial court properly maintained jurisdiction throughout the case, including during the termination order phase. The appellant conceded the trial court's jurisdiction for emergency custody, and although a guardianship petition was filed in Mississippi, it did not constitute a custody proceeding under Arkansas jurisdiction. The children had resided in Arkansas for over a year before the guardianship petition was filed.

Mississippi was not the home state of the children in February 2015 or within the six months prior. Instead, Arkansas had become their home state, resulting in Mississippi lacking jurisdiction under Arkansas Code Annotated sections 9-19-201 to 203 at that time. Since there was no prior child custody determination or proceeding in a jurisdiction with authority, Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-19-204(b) applied, affirming Arkansas as the home state before the termination proceedings began. Consequently, the trial court had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to terminate the appellant's parental rights, leading to an affirmation of the decision. Justices Gruber and Hixson concurred. The document cites Arkansas Code Annotated sections 9-19-202 and 9-19-203 concerning child custody jurisdiction. Legal representation included Leah Lanford for the appellant and Mischa K. Martin for the appellee, with Keith L. Chrestman acting as attorney ad litem for the minor children.