Abdul-Khaliq v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 717 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-13-658 BILAL ABDUL-KHALIQ Opinion Delivered December 4, 2013 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT V. [NO. JV-2004-356] ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HONORABLE MARK HEWETT, HUMAN SERVICES and JUDGE MINOR CHILD APPELLEES AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED RHONDA K. WOOD, Judge This is a no-merit appeal from an order terminating Bilal Abdul-Khaliq s parental rights to his child, MAK. Abdul-Khaliq s appellate counsel has filed a brief and motion to withdraw under 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) (2013). Abdul-Khaliq was given an opportunity to file pro se points but has declined to do so. We affirm and grant counsel s motion because there is no meritorious basis for an appeal. MAK came into the Department of Human Services s custody in January 2011. She had been living with her mother, who abandoned her after fleeing from the police. Abdul-Khaliq, MAK s father, only appeared at the probable-cause and adjudication hearings. After that, he never went to court or contacted DHS. The Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 717 juvenile court terminated his parental rights in April 2013 on the grounds of abandonment. After examining the record we agree that an appeal would be meritless. Counsel has complied with our requirements for no-merit termination cases: the only adverse ruling was the termination order itself, and counsel has adequately explained why there is no arguable basis to appeal that decision. We therefore affirm by memorandum opinion, In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985), and grant the motion to withdraw. Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted. GLOVER and HIXSON, JJ., agree. Deborah R. Sallings, Arkansas Public Defender Commission, for appellant. No response. 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.
