Chafin v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 318
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
CA10–1312
No.
Opinion Delivered
SHANNON CHAFIN
APPELLANT
V.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES and MINOR
CHILDREN
APPELLEES
April 27, 2011
APPEAL FROM THE YELL COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT, NORTHERN
DISTRICT
[NO. JV-09-1]
HONORABLE TERRY SULLIVAN,
JUDGE
REBRIEFING ORDERED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant Shannon Chafin appeals the Yell County Circuit Court’s termination of his
parental rights to his six minor children. He does not contest that the trial court met the
statutory requirements for termination but contends that the court erred by denying
placement of his children with relatives pursuant to the Interstate Compact on the Placement
of Children (ICPC).1 According to Chafin, the court acted in contravention of ICPC and
should be reversed. We order rebriefing due to deficiencies in Chafin’s abstract and
addendum.
1
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-29-201 (2007).
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 318
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5) requires the appellant to create an abstract “of
the material parts of all the transcripts . . . in the record.” Information is “material” if it “is
essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to
decide the issues on appeal.” 2 Here, appellant has completely failed to provide an abstract of
the termination hearing. Without an abstract of the proceeding, we are unable to decide if
appellant raised the issue of ICPC compliance to the trial court.
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) requires that the addendum contain any
pleading or document “in the record that is essential for the appellate court to confirm its
jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal.” Appellant has failed
to include the April 23, 2010 Interstate Placement transmittal from West Virginia in the
addendum. This transmittal is essential for this court to decide the issue on appeal.
Additionally, appellant’s addendum index/list does not correspond with the items found in
the addendum.
As such, we order Chafin to cure the deficiencies by filing a substituted abstract, brief,
and addendum within fifteen days from the date of this opinion.3 We encourage appellate
counsel to review Rule 4-2 to assure that the substituted brief complies with the rule and to
ensure that no additional deficiencies are present. After service of the substituted abstract,
brief, and addendum, appellees shall have an opportunity to revise or supplement their briefs
2
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5).
3
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3).
-2-
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 318
in the time prescribed by the court. 4 If Chafin fails to file a compliant brief within the
prescribed time, the termination order may be affirmed for noncompliance with our rules.5
Rebriefing ordered.
W YNNE and A BRAMSON, JJ., agree.
4
Id.
5
Id.
-3-
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.
