McPherson v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. (Majority)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 238 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CA12-992 KAYLA McPHERSON Opinion Delivered April 17, 2013 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE LONOKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. JV-2011-68] V. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES APPELLEE HONORABLE BARBARA ELMORE, JUDGE APPEAL DISMISSED JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge Appellant seeks to appeal an order terminating her parental rights to her three minor children. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The requirements of a notice of appeal in dependency-neglect proceedings differ from normal procedure in that Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-9(b)(1)(B) requires that the notice of appeal and designation of record be signed not only by appellant s counsel but also by the appellant herself if, as here, she is an adult. A notice of appeal in such cases that lacks the signature of the appellant is deficient. Martin v. Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services, 369 Ark. 477, 255 S.W.3d 830 (2007). Not every defect in a notice of appeal will deprive the appellate court of jurisdiction, see Evins v. Carvin, 2012 Ark. App. 622, but the Arkansas Supreme Court has required strict compliance with the appellant-signature requirement of Rule 6-9(b)(1)(B). See, e.g., S.F. v. Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services, 370 Ark. 475, 261 S.W.3d 462 (2007). Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 238 Although we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, we note that the Arkansas Supreme Court may grant a motion for belated appeal under certain circumstances. See Garcia v. Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services, 374 Ark. 144, 286 S.W.3d 674 (2008); S.F. v. Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services, supra; Ark. R. App. P. Crim. 2(e). Appeal dismissed. GLADWIN, C.J., and VAUGHT, J., agree. Charles D. Hancock, for appellant. Tabitha Baertels McNulty, County Legal Operations, for appellee. Chrestman Group, PLLC, by: Keith Chrestman, attorney ad litem for minor children. 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.