Misty Rhine v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, JUDGE
DIVISION I
CA06-137
MISTY RHINE
September 5, 2007
APPELLANT
V.
APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. JV-2005-327-3]
A R K A N SA S D E P A R T M E N T
HUMAN SERVICES
OF
APPELLEE
HON. STACEY
JUDGE
A.
ZIMMERMAN,
MOTION DENIED, REBRIEFING
ORDERED
Misty Rhine’s parental rights to A.I. were terminated by a Washington County Circuit
Court order entered on October 27, 2005. The termination followed a joint hearing in which
the parental rights of the father, Anthony Ivers, Sr., were also terminated. Attorney Glenn
Hoggard replaced Gail Segers as counsel of record on appeal, and on November 13, 2006,
he tendered a belated brief and motion to withdraw, purportedly drafted in accordance with
our supreme court’s decision in Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Department of Human Services,
359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(1).
We consolidated Rhine’s no-merit appeal with Ivers’s appeals of the dependencyneglect adjudication and order relieving the Arkansas Department of Human Services of
providing reunification services and the termination of his parental rights. In our February
21, 2007, opinion, we denied Mr. Hoggard’s motion to withdraw, holding that counsel had
failed to strictly comply with the requirements established by the Arkansas Supreme Court
for no-merit appeals in termination cases. Ivers v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 98 Ark.
App. 57, __S.W.3d ___ (2007). We specifically noted that Rhine’s appellate counsel failed
to identify and discuss why it was not error for the trial court to deny Rhine’s motion for a
continuance that was made for the express purpose of effecting a relative placement of A.I.
In ordering rebriefing, we clearly did not foreclose the possibility of having this issue
addressed as a merit point.
Rhine’s appellate counsel has once again filed a motion to withdraw along with a nomerit brief. In this brief, the continuance issue is discussed at length. We are not convinced,
however, that arguing this issue on the merits would be “wholly frivolous.” We hold that
Rhine’s appellate counsel has failed to comport with the requirements of Linker-Flores,
supra and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(j)(1). We therefore deny appellate counsel’s
motion to be relieved and order that this case be submitted in merit format.
Motion to be relieved denied; rebriefing ordered.
P ITTMAN, C.J., and M ILLER, J., agree.
-2-
CA06-137
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.
