Chafin v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 496 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CA10 1312 Opinion Delivered SHANNON CHAFIN APPELLANT V. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES and MINOR CHILDREN APPELLEES August 31, 2011 APPEAL FROM THE YELL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT [NO. JV-09-1] HONORABLE TERRY SULLIVAN, JUDGE AFFIRMED WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge Appellant Shannon Chafin appeals the Yell County Circuit Court s termination of his parental rights to his six minor children. He does not contest that the trial court met the statutory requirements for termination but contends that the court erred by denying placement of his children with relatives pursuant to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC).1 According to Chafin, the court acted in contravention of ICPC and should be reversed. We affirm the termination order.2 1 2 Ark. Code Ann. ยง 9-29-201 (Repl. 2009). This is the second time this case is before us. We originally ordered rebriefing due to deficiencies in Chafin s abstract and addendum. See Chafin v. Ark. Dep t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 318. Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 496 The Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) took Chafin s five children 3 into emergency custody on December 30, 2008. An order for emergency custody was entered on January 2, 2009. At the probable cause hearing on January 9, 2009, the court ordered the children to remain in DHS custody. During the life of the case, the court ordered that home studies be completed on the children s aunt and grandmother. Missouri approved the placement of Chafin s three oldest children with their maternal aunt, Mindy Metcalf, on January 6, 2010.4 On January 8, 2010, the court changed the goal of the case to adoption/termination of parental rights.5 A home study report of the children s grandmother, Carolyn Chafin, was completed on April 21, 2010. Although the evaluator noted a number of concerns, Carolyn s home was approved for placement of all six children. However, according to the Interstate Placement transmittal from West Virginia dated April 23, 2010, approval of placement of the children was withheld by West Virginia due to the issues found during the home study. After a hearing on September 9, 2010, the court entered an order terminating the parental rights of both Chafin and his wife, Mary.6 Chafin timely appealed from the termination order. Chafin s sole argument on appeal is that the court erred by denying placement of his children with relatives pursuant to ICPC. According to Chafin, once the home studies were 3 The sixth child, born October 10, 2009, was taken into emergency custody after he tested positive for opiates on October 19, 2009. 4 The home study and approval was filed January 8, 2010. 5 The order was filed on January 20, 2010. 6 Although Mary Chafin s parental rights were also terminated, she is not a party to this appeal. 2 Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 496 approved, the court had no option but to approve the placement. This argument is procedurally barred. First, the record before us does not demonstrate that Chafin raised the issue of ICPC compliance to the lower court. This court will not address issues raised for the first time on appeal.7 Secondly, Chafin did not appeal from the permanency planning order changing the case goal to adoption/termination of parental rights. Chafin has therefore waived consideration of his argument.8 Affirmed. P ITTMAN and G LADWIN, JJ., agree. 7 Kelley v. Ark. Dep t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 481. 8 See id. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
