proposing that “[c]ases of this kind should be subject to an immediate appeal. Permanency in the eyes of a child is a much shorter and meaningful period than we as adults may realize. At issue is the best interest of the child, which is best served by proceeding expeditiously”
How later courts described this case
- proposing that “[c]ases of this kind should be subject to an immediate appeal. Permanency in the eyes of a child is a much shorter and meaningful period than we as adults may realize. At issue is the best interest of the child, which is best served by proceeding expeditiously”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
John Mauzy Pittman, Judge, concurring. I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion. However, I believe that the decision fails to explain that the appealability of the order denying the post-trial motion depends on whether appellant could have appealed from the ex parte order (which the post-trial motion had sought to set aside). Based on the facts presented, I believe the ex parte order would have been unappealable. See Chancellor v. Chancellor, 282 Ark. 227 , 667 S.W.2d 950 (1984); Jones v. Jones, 41 Ark. App. 146 , 852 S.W.2d 325 (1993). Therefore, I believe that the order denying the post-trial motion was unappealable.