Arkansas Court of Appeals, 2014

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

Holt v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
Arkansas Court of Appeals · Decided June 4, 2014 · Rhonda K. Wood
2014 Ark. App. 368
Holt v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.

Opinion

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 368

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION III

No. CV-13-1127

Opinion Delivered June 4, 2014 JENNIFER HOLT and

JOEL HOLT APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN APPELLANTS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT V. [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

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.

1 Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii), (ix) (Supp. 2013).

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.