holding that a custodial parent lacked standing to raise the issue of lack of proper service on noncustodial parents in an adjudication proceeding
How later courts described this case
- holding that a custodial parent lacked standing to raise the issue of lack of proper service on noncustodial parents in an adjudication proceeding
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 450
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CV-16-486
GREGORY ALLEN KIDD Opinion Delivered: September 28, 2016
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE HEMPSTED
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NOS. 29JV-15-130, 29JV-15-131,
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF 29JV-15-132, 29JV-15-133,
HUMAN SERVICES and MINOR 29JV-15-134]
CHILDREN
APPELLEES HONORABLE RANDY WRIGHT,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant appeals from the circuit court’s March 29, 2016 adjudication order in
which it adjudicated Z.S., born 9/12/2004; J.C., born 9/27/2005; A.C., born 1/2/2008;
J.S., born 8/12/2009; and C.S., born 12/10/2011, as dependent-neglected and specifically
found that C.S. had been sexually abused by appellant. On appeal, appellant argues that the
circuit court (1) erred in exercising jurisdiction in the case absent joinder of all indispensable
parties and (2) acted in a manner inconsistent with his due process rights, thereby rendering
its judgments and orders void. We affirmed.
Appellant’s argument is that the noncustodial parents to the juveniles were not given
notice of the proceedings, therefore, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction. 1 Constitutional
1
While appellant references all defendants in his “Statement of the Nature of the
Case[,]” he does not discuss his own rights at all in his “Legal Analysis”; he only discusses
the rights of three of the other defendants, specifically, Candy Collier, the children’s mother;
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 450
rights, including the guarantee of due process, are personal rights and may not be asserted
by a third party. 2 In Burdette v. Dietz, where the appellant made the same argument as to
the natural father, this court stated the following:
We need not discuss this issue in detail for the following reasons: first, appellant has
no standing to raise the issue of lack of proper service upon the natural father. Second,
even if appellant had such standing, she failed at trial to raise issues as to sufficiency
of process and jurisdiction in the manner required by ARCP Rule 12(b), (h)(1). 3
Likewise, appellant has no standing to raise the issue of lack of proper service on the
noncustodial parents.
Because appellant makes no argument regarding his own notice, instead focusing his
efforts on making an argument for other parties who have chosen not to make said argument
for themselves, he has made an argument that he does not have proper standing to make.
Affirmed.
VAUGHT and HIXSON, JJ., agree.
Stayton & Associates, by: Rowe Stayton, for appellant.
Andrew Firth, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.
Chrestman Group, PLLC, by: Keith L. Chrestman, attorney ad litem for minor
children.
Terrance Scott, legal father of Z.S., J.C., and A.C.; and Matthew Collier, legal father of J.S.
and C.S.
2
Cox v. Stayton, 273 Ark. 298, 302, 619 S.W.2d 617, 619 (1981) (citing Broadrick v.
Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973); Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249 (1953)).
3
18 Ark. App. 107, 109, 711 S.W.2d 178, 180 (1986) (internal citations omitted).
2