The opinion
Abramson, J., concurs.
Although I agree with the conclusion that the majority reaches, I write separately to express my concern in affirming this case based on the absence of some of the statutory requirements in the appel-lees’ petition for adoption. Even though appellees’ counsel offered a plausible explanation at oral argument for the unique reasons of this lapse, I write to make it clear that this court does not generally condone omissions from the contents requirement for the standard adoption petition as set forth in Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-9-210 (Supp.2013).
However, because this failure was cured by the proof presented to the trial court— the testimony presented, the domestic-adoption home-study report, and the affidavits by the appellees and the licensed social worker who completed the home study — I am willing to affirm. The statutory requirements for adoption were ultimately presented to the trial court prior to the court reaching its conclusion.
We are able to look at the entire record to find substantial compliance, and here, after taking into account both the testimony and the pleadings, such compliance was established. An adoption is a special proceeding, unlike other actions, and the set of facts in this case is particularly convoluted. But based on a review of the entire record, I conclude that all jurisdictional requirements are found in the record; therefore, there was substantial compliance with the statute. Accordingly, I concur.