Lambert v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 678
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
CA10-596
No.
Opinion Delivered
OCTOBER 6, 2010
PENNY LAMBERT
APPELLANT
V.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES
APPELLEE
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
TENTH DIVISION
[NO. JN2008-1257]
HONORABLE JEWEL HOLLOWAY
HARPER, SPECIAL JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED
KAREN R. BAKER, Judge
On March 22, 2010, the Pulaski County Circuit Court entered an order terminating
the parental rights of appellant Penny Lambert to her three children. Lambert’s attorney has
filed a motion to withdraw and a no-merit brief pursuant to Linker-Flores v. Ark. Dep’t of
Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004), and Rule 6-9(i) (2009) of the Rules of
the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, asserting that there are no issues of
arguable merit to support the appeal. Counsel’s motion is accompanied by an abstract,
addendum, and brief discussing the sufficiency of the evidence and fifteen rulings at trial
adverse to Lambert. The clerk of this court sent copies of counsel’s motion and brief to
Lambert at her last known address, informing her that she had the right to file pro se points
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 678
for reversal. The letter was returned to the clerk unclaimed and Lambert has not filed any pro
se points. Neither the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) nor the attorney ad
litem has filed a brief; however, both have filed letters pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(i)(2)
stating that they concur that the appeal has no merit.
After carefully examining the record and the brief presented to us, we find that counsel
has complied with the requirements established by the Arkansas Supreme Court for no-merit
appeals in termination cases and also conclude that the appeal is wholly without merit.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the order terminating
Lambert’s parental rights.
Affirmed; motion granted.
G RUBER and H ENRY, JJ., 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.
