Sloan v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 370
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CA10-1327
Opinion Delivered
FINUS SLOAN and ANTONIO
GORDON
APPELLANTS
May 18, 2011
APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
WESTERN DISTRICT
[NO. JV-2009-0009]
V.
HONORABLE CINDY THYER,
JUDGE
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
RITA W. GRUBER, Judge
The circuit court terminated appellant Finus Sloan’s parental rights in A.S., age seven.1
Sloan’s counsel 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 Arkansas
Supreme Court Rule 6-9(i) (2010), setting forth all adverse rulings from the termination
hearing and asserting that there is no meritorious basis for an appeal. The clerk of our court
mailed a certified copy of counsel’s motion and brief to Sloan’s last known address, informing
him of his right to file pro se points for reversal. He has filed no points.
1
The court also terminated the parental rights of separate appellant, Antonio Gordon,
in A.S.’s half-brother, K.S. After the record was filed on appeal, Gordon obtained DNA-test
results showing that he was not the father of K.S. He filed a motion to dismiss his appeal,
which we granted on March 30, 2011.
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 370
After carefully examining the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude that counsel has
complied with the requirements established by the Arkansas Supreme Court for no-merit
termination cases and that the appeal is wholly without merit. We therefore affirm, by
memorandum opinion, the termination of Sloan’s parental rights in A.S. See In re Memorandum
Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985); Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 5-2(e) (2010). Counsel’s
motion to withdraw is granted.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
G LOVER and H OOFMAN , 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.
