From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Services

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division II
Feb 23, 2011
2011 Ark. App. 152 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011)

Opinion

CA 10-1166

Opinion Delivered February 23, 2011

Appeal from the Benton County Circuit Court, [No. JV-09-485], Honorable Jay T. Finch, Judge, Motion to Withdraw Denied; Rebriefing Ordered.


On August 17, 2010, the Benton County Circuit Court entered an order terminating appellant Susan Martin's parental rights to her children, D.M., born on May 29, 2007; N.P., born on April 10, 2002; and I.P., born on March 6, 2005. Martin's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a no-merit brief pursuant to Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-9(i). Counsel's brief purportedly discussed the sufficiency of the evidence to support the termination. Counsel states that there were no objections made by Martin and no other rulings adverse to Martin. DHS agrees that there is no merit in an appeal and has elected not to file a brief at this time. The attorney ad litem has also decided not to file a brief. The clerk of this court attempted to mail a certified copy of counsel's motion and brief to Martin; however, both attempts were unsuccessful. We deny counsel's motion to withdraw and order rebriefing.

The court also terminated the parental rights of each of the children's fathers; however, the fathers are not subjects of this appeal.

Dr. Martin T. Faitak performed a psychological evaluation of Martin on June 29, 2009. Martin was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, learning disabilities, and borderline personality disorder. As a result of the evaluation, Dr. Faitak made the following recommendations: (1) that Martin be seen by a psychiatrist in order to determine if medication would be useful in helping to stabilize her mood, (2) that Martin receive hands-on parenting because her attention and learning problems would make it difficult for her to learn and apply information through a classroom setting, (3) that Martin be in individual therapy in order to improve her judgment and to help her accept responsibility for the choices she is making. Martin was subsequently seen by a psychiatrist and placed on medication. DHS made referrals for individual counseling for Martin. However, by the time of the termination hearing, Martin still had not participated in hands-on parenting. In its oral ruling, the court conceded that DHS had not complied with the recommendation for one-on-one parenting. Despite this, the court ruled that termination was in the best interests of the children, and terminated Martin's parental rights.

Martin testified that she took parenting classes on her own.

Here, we do not agree that it would be frivolous to argue that since Martin did not receive the one-on-one parenting recommended by Dr. Faitak and ordered by the court, termination should not have been granted. Because there is at least one issue of arguable merit, we deny the motion to withdraw and order rebriefing in a merit form.

Motion to withdraw denied; rebriefing ordered.

HART and WYNNE, JJ., agree.


Summaries of

Martin v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Services

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division II
Feb 23, 2011
2011 Ark. App. 152 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011)
Case details for

Martin v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Services

Case Details

Full title:Susan MARTIN, Appellant v. ARKANSAS DEP'T OF HUMAN SERVS. and Minor…

Court:Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division II

Date published: Feb 23, 2011

Citations

2011 Ark. App. 152 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011)

Citing Cases

Martin v. Dept. of Human Serv

We denied counsel's motion to be relieved and ordered rebriefing in a merit form. See Martin v. Ark. Dep't of…

Kelley v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services

We determined solely that, based on the particular facts of those cases, a merit-based appeal would not be…