Smith v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 272
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CA10-1305
Opinion Delivered A PRIL 13, 2011
PATRICIA SMITH
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. JV-2009-196]
V.
HONORABLE RALPH WILSON, JR.,
JUDGE
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES and MINOR
CHILD
APPELLEES
REBRIEFING ORDERED; MOTION
TO WITHDRAW DENIED
ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge
This is an appeal from the decision of the Crittenden County Circuit Court that
terminated appellant Patricia Smith’s parental rights in her minor son. Appellant’s counsel 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 Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(i), stating that
there are no issues of arguable merit for appeal. Counsel lists the termination decision as the
circuit court’s only adverse ruling and explains why that ruling is not a meritorious ground
for reversal. However, our review of the record reveals that counsel failed to abstract the
hearing on the petition to terminate appellant’s parental rights as required by Ark. Sup. Ct.
R. 6-9(e)(2)(C) and 6-9(i)(1)(B).
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 272
In Sartin v. State, 2010 Ark. 16, ___ S.W.3d ___, (per curiam)our supreme court held
that
the
failure
to
list
and
discuss
all
adverse
rulings
in
a
no-merit
termination-of-parental-rights case does not automatically require rebriefing if the ruling
would clearly not present a meritorious ground for reversal. We decline, however, to
overlook the complete omission of the required abstract in this case. Therefore, we order
rebriefing and direct counsel to properly abstract the circuit court’s July 29, 2010 hearing on
the petition to terminate appellant’s parental rights.
Rebriefing ordered; motion to withdraw denied.
W YNNE and G LOVER, 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.
