Owen v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 648 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-14-632 Opinion Delivered November 12, 2014 ANGELA OWEN V. APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT [NO. JV-2013-225] ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES and MINOR HONORABLE MARK HEWETT, CHILD JUDGE APPELLEES AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED RHONDA K. WOOD, Judge The circuit court terminated Angela Owen’s parental rights to her child, I.K. Owens’s 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 in February 2014 to terminate Owens’s parental rights. In April 2014, the court held a permanency-planning hearing, which Owens attended. The termination hearing took place later in the month, but Owens never appeared. After hearing testimony, the court found that the Department had proved five statutory grounds and that termination was in I.K.’s best interest. It subsequently granted the petition to terminate Owens’s parental rights. 1 Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 648 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) (2014). 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 two adverse rulings: the termination order and one evidence-based objection. Counsel has adequately explained why neither provides a meritorious ground to appeal. 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. GLOVER and VAUGHT, JJ., agree. Leah Lanford, Arkansas Public Defender Commission, Dependency-Neglect Appellate Division, 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.
