Petton v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 305 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III CA11-0027 No. LEAH PETTON Opinion Delivered April 27, 2011 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. JV-09-771-3] V. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES APPELLEE HONORABLE JAY T. FINCH, JUDGE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Judge Leah Petton’s parental rights to M.M., born July 20, 2007, and J.M., born April 16, 2009, were terminated by the Benton County Circuit Court. Petton’s appellate 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 Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(i). The brief states that the termination hearing produced no adverse rulings other than the termination decision and explains why no meritorious ground for reversal exists. Our clerk’s office attempted to furnish Petton with a copy of counsel’s brief and motion; however, Petton was no longer incarcerated and her counsel had no forwarding address. Neither the Arkansas Department of Human Services nor the attorney ad litem who brought the termination petition has filed a brief. We affirm the termination order and grant appellant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 305 After 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.1 Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the order terminating Petton’s parental rights. Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted. G RUBER and M ARTIN, JJ., agree. 1 We are intrigued by the fact that the minor children have been placed with a man who is the biological father of one of the children and that this termination order relieves the biological mother of any responsibility with regard to the children she brought into this world. Nowhere in the record can we find even a suggestion that forcing her to pay child support for her offspring has been considered in the best-interest-of-the-child analysis. 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.