Opinion

Hall v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

  • 2012 Ark. App. 245
  • 413 S.W.3d 542
  • 2012 Ark. App. LEXIS 356
  • 2012 WL 1194002
Court
Court of Appeals of Arkansas
Filed
Apr 11, 2012
Status
Published
Author
Hart
On the bench
Hart, Robbins, Vaught
Cited by
15 cases
Authority
More cited than 21.6%

holding that issue of ICWA compliance was not preserved for appeal where there was no evidence in the record that it was raised below

How later courts described this case

  • holding that issue of ICWA compliance was not preserved for appeal where there was no evidence in the record that it was raised below

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

HART, J., concurring.

I concur because, in affirming, we are following the law as created by the court of appeals just a few short months ago in Glover v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2011 Ark. App. 748 , 387 S.W.3d 224 . However, I believe that the Glover case was wrongly decided for the reasons that I set out in my lengthy dissent in that case.

Here, we have yet another nonoffending parent living out of state who was unable to surmount the barriers that ADHS placed in his way in order to gain custody of his biological |12child. To Mr. Hall’s credit, he was trying to step up and take care of his child. The people of Arkansas should expect nothing less.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.