Tammie Richard v. Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, CHIEF JUDGE DIVISION II CA05-456 May 16, 2007 TAMMIE RICHARD APPELLANT APPEAL FROM LITTLE RIVER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NOS. JV 02-1, JV 04-27] V. HON. CHARLES A. YEARGAN, JUDGE AR KAN SAS DEPARTM EN T O F HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES APPELLEE AFFIRMED The appellant is the mother of S.P., a minor who was removed from the home because of physical abuse. Counsel for appellant has filed a motion to withdraw and a no-merit brief pursuant to 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). The clerk of this court sent a certified copy of appellant’s brief and the motion to be relieved to appellant, informing her that she had the right to file pro se points for reversal under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(2) but, although the certified packet was received, no pro se points were filed by appellant. Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services did not file a brief in response. Counsel’s motion was accompanied by a brief listing all adverse rulings made at the termination hearing and explaining why there is no meritorious ground for reversal to each ruling, including a discussion of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the termination order based on evidence presented at all the prior proceedings that were incorporated in the record of the termination proceeding, as required by Lewis v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 364 Ark. 243, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2005). After carefully examining the record, we find that counsel has complied with the requirements established by the Arkansas Supreme Court for no-merit motions in termination cases, and we hold that the appeal is wholly without merit. Consequently, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the order terminating appellant’s parental rights. Affirmed. M ARSHALL and M ILLER, JJ., agree. -2- CA05-456

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.