Henry v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 768
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CA10-686
Opinion Delivered
November 17, 2010
JOSEPH ALLEN HENRY
APPELLANT
V.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES and MINOR CHILD
APPELLEES
APPEAL FROM THE BENTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[No. JV-10-115-3]
HONORABLE JAY T. FINCH, JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED
LARRY D. VAUGHT, Chief Judge
A Benton County Circuit Court granted appellee Arkansas Department of Human
Services’ petition to terminate appellant Joseph Allen Henry’s parental rights to his minor son,
H.B., based on a finding of aggravated circumstances—that the child was conceived after Henry
raped his girlfriend’s fourteen-year-old daughter. Pursuant to Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Department
of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004) (Linker-Flores I) and Rule 6-9(i) of the
Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, Henry’s counsel has tendered a
motion to withdraw on the ground that an appeal is wholly without merit. The motion was
accompanied by a brief purportedly presenting a thorough and professional evaluation of the
record and discussing all matters in the record that might arguably support an appeal, including
the adverse rulings, and a statement as to why counsel considers each point raised as incapable
of supporting a meritorious appeal. The clerk of this court sent a certified copy of counsel’s brief
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 768
and motion to Henry and notified him of his right to file pro se points for reversal. Henry has
elected to file pro se points.
In his pro se points for reversal, Henry alleges, as he did below, that H.B. was not the
product of rape. Instead, Henry claims his “miracle child” was conceived after C.B. impregnated
herself with Henry’s semen using an eyedropper. He further explains that because he is now
serving a substantial sentence for raping the child’s mother, he is not in a position to harm the
child and therefore termination is premature. Finally, he makes an in-depth, ineffectiveassistance-of-counsel argument. However, he fails to raise any argument that would support
reversing the trial court’s decision to terminate his parental rights. Therefore, we hold that
Henry’s pro se points lack merit.
After careful review of the record in accordance with Rule 6–9(i) of the Rules of the
Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, we hold that an appeal of the termination of
Henry’s parental rights lacks merit and that the termination of his parental rights should be
affirmed. We, therefore, grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.
Affirmed; counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel granted.
GLADWIN and HENRY, 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.
