Risner v. ADHS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 870 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CA09-706 CHRISTOPHER RISNER and EMILY RISNER, APPELLANTS V. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES and MINOR CHILD, APPELLEES Opinion Delivered 16 DECEMBER 2009 APPEAL FROM THE CONWAY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, [NO. JV-2008-3] THE HONORABLE TERRY M. SULLIVAN, JUDGE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED D.P. MARSHALL JR., Judge Appointed counsel has filed a no-merit brief and moved to withdraw in this termination-of-parental-rights case. Our clerk sent a copy of these papers to Mr. Risner and Mrs. Risner. They both received the brief and the motion, but neither filed any pro se points. We affirm the termination by this memorandum opinion. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 52(e). The Risners’ attorney has fully complied with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(i). The core of the circuit court’s careful opinion explains why termination is in the best interests of the Risners’ now two-year-old daughter. The minor child has been adjudicated by the Court to be dependentneglected, and has resided outside the parental home of the parents for Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 870 twelve months, and despite a meaningful effort by the Department of Human Services to rehabilitate the home and correct the conditions which caused removal, those conditions have not been remedied by the parents. The parents have only seen the child 3 or 4 times in 14 months. The parents have not attended rehab. The parents have no home. The parents have no income today. The circuit court’s termination decision follows the governing statute in all particulars. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3) (Supp. 2009). We agree that an appeal on the merits would be frivolous, affirm the circuit court’s decision, and grant the motion to withdraw. Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004). Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted. VAUGHT, C.J., and GLOVER, J., agree. -2-

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.