Holt v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 368 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-13-1127 Opinion Delivered JENNIFER HOLT and JOEL HOLT V. June 4, 2014 APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN APPELLANTS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT [NO. JV-2010-55] ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HONORABLE MARK HEWETT, HUMAN SERVICES and MINOR JUDGE CHILD APPELLEES AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED RHONDA K. WOOD, Judge The circuit court terminated Jennifer and Joel Holt s parental rights to their child, B.H. The Holts counsel filed a no-merit brief and motion to withdraw. No pro se points have been filed. We affirm the court s termination order and grant counsel s motion to withdraw. The Department of Human Services filed a petition to terminate the Holts parental rights based on two statutory grounds: other factors and aggravated circumstances. 1 The petition also alleged that termination was in B.H. s best interest. After 1 Ark. Code Ann. ยง 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii), (ix) (Supp. 2013). Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 368 a termination hearing, the court terminated the Holts parental rights after finding multiple statutory grounds and agreeing with DHS that termination was in B.H. s best interest. If appellate counsel thinks that an appeal from a termination-of-parental-rights order is meritless, he or she may file a no-merit brief. Linker-Flores v. Ark. Dep t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004); Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(i) (2013). The brief must list all adverse rulings and explain why none provide a meritorious ground for reversal. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(i)(1)(A). Here, there were eight adverse rulings: the termination order and seven evidence-based objections. Counsel has adequately explained why none provide a meritorious ground to appeal. Counsel fully complied with our rules. We grant the motion to withdraw and affirm the termination order by memorandum opinion. See In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985). Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted. PITTMAN and HIXSON, JJ., agree. Dusti Standridge, for appellants. 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.