Rodgers v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 778 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II CA09-606 No. TONYA RODGERS APPELLANT V. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES APPELLEE Opinion Delivered November 18, 2009 APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, [NO. JV 2008-199] HONORABLE CINDY THYER, JUDGE REMANDED TO SETTLE THE RECORD M. MICHAEL KINARD, Judge On March 3, 2009, the Craighead County Circuit Court terminated the parental rights of appellant Tonya Rodgers to her son, C.R., born January 6, 2004. Rodgers’s attorney 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 Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) has not filed a brief. We cannot reach the merits of this appeal because the record is deficient. One of the grounds for termination of Rodgers’s parental rights found by the circuit court was that Rodgers had subjected her son to aggravated circumstances in that a determination had been made by a judge that there was little likelihood that services to the family would result in successful reunification. See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B) (ix)(a)(3)(A) and (B)(i) (Repl. 2008). The record reflects that DHS filed a motion seeking to Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 778 terminate all reunification services. Counsel for Rodgers and the attorney ad litem both stated that DHS’s motion for no reunification services had been granted. However, the order is not contained in the record. Rule 6(e) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure-Civil provides in relevant part that: If anything material to either party is omitted from the record by error or accident or is misstated therein,… the appellate court on proper suggestion, or on its own initiative, may direct that the omission or misstatement shall be corrected, and if necessary, that a supplemental record be certified and transmitted. . . . Because the order disposing of DHS’s motion to be relieved of providing services is not contained in the record, we remand for the record to be settled within fifteen days from entry of this order. Remanded to settle the record. PITTMAN and BAKER, JJ., agree. -2- CA09-606

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.