Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Janet Jacefield sought an order of protection against Martin Wills. The circuit court entered an order of protection and scheduled a hearing on the petition. At the hearing, the circuit court denied Wills's motion for a continuance and entered a permanent order of protection. Wills later filed a motion and brief to set aside the order of protection, asserting that he was served only seven days prior to the hearing, which deprived him of enough time to respond under Ark. R. Civ. P. 6(c). The court of appeals dismissed the motion. At issue on appeal was whether the proceedings in the lower courts were special proceedings within the meaning of Ark. R. of Civ. P. 81. The Supreme Court concluded that the proceedings filed under the Domestic Abuse Act were special proceedings, so that to the extent the statutes creating the special proceedings provide for a procedure that is different from the state's rules of civil procedure, the rules of civil procedure do not apply. The Court affirmed, holding Wills was timely served before the hearing.

Fifteen-month-old Trayvon Scroggins died in June, 2006 after being hit by a taxicab. Trayvon was survived by his mother, Appellee Evon Medlock, his father, Appellant Tremayne Scoggins, and one sister. Appellant was serving time at a federal penitentiary at the time of Trayvonâs birth and death. Appellee was Trayvonâs sole caregiver, and was named special administratrix of his estate. On opening Trayvonâs estate, Appellee asserted that Appellant was Trayvonâs biological father, but because he was in prison, no claim as a beneficiary would be asserted on his behalf unless it was determined that he was entitled to any benefits under state law. Subsequent to her appointment as administratrix, Appellee filed a wrongful-death and survival action against the cab company. The suit ended in settlement. But at the hearing, the circuit court appointed counsel to represent Appellantâs interests. In 2009, Appellant filed a motion to establish paternity of Trayvon. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the paternity suit, arguing that state law has a mechanism for establishing paternity when one of the parents is dead, but not when the child is dead. Appellee argued that the circuit court could not exercise jurisdiction over a deceased child. The circuit court dismissed the paternity suit, holding it was outside its statutory powers to hear the case. Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals, but that court dismissed the appeal as moot. The Supreme Court was âmindfulâ of Appellantâs assertion that he had a right to participate in Trayvonâs wrongful-death action. Beneficiaries of a wrongful-death action include the surviving parents and siblings. However, the Court held it âwill not read words into a statutory provision that are not there.â The Court affirmed the order of the circuit court dismissing Appellantâs petition.

In October, 2008, a joint raid was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Arkansas State Police on the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries (TACM) compound in Fouke. As a result, many of the children found at the compound were taken into foster care. TACM was run by the convicted sex offender Bernie Hoffman, a.k.a. âTony Alamo.â Alamo continued to direct activities at the TACM compound from his jail cell up until this raid. An emergency custody order was entered in November, 2008 for the children, including the six children of Appellants Miriam and Albert Krantz. This order was based on information gathered from the children themselves concerning their physical abuse and neglect by members of the TACM including their parents and guardians. The court found that the children's parents: 1) failed to protect them from physical abuse; 2) endorsed or facilitated illegal marriages of their underage female children to adult males; 3) failed to assure the children received adequate education; and lastly, 4) failed to have their children immunized. The court ordered the Department of Human Services (DHS) continue to have custody of the children until the time where the DHS concluded that the parents were sufficiently reformed and cooperative in ameliorating the childrenâs living conditions. The court ordered the Department of Human Services (DHS) continue to have custody of the children until the time where the DHS concluded that the parents were sufficiently reformed and cooperative in ameliorating the childrenâs living conditions. It was ruled that only at this time would parents and children be reunited. A subsequent hearing revealed that Appellants continued to expose children to this abusive atmosphere. DHS moved to terminate Appellants' parental rights. Appellants counter argued that by taking away their children, the DHS had interfered with their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Appellants alleged both that physical presence on the compound and taking direction from Alamo was central to the free exercise of her religious beliefs. The termination of her parental rights interfered, therefore, with that free exercise. The Supreme Court found the DHSâs actions only incidentally affected Appellants' exercise of their religion. âThe target of the requirements was not in any religious activity or exercise; instead the goal was to provide a safe environment for their children apart from the TACM compound.â The Court found the evidence in the trial courtâs records âclear and convincingâ to support the termination order, and affirmed the courtâs termination of their parental rights.

In October, 2008, a joint raid was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Arkansas State Police on the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries (TACM) compound in Fouke. As a result, many of the children found at the compound were taken into foster care. TACM was run by the convicted sex offender Bernie Hoffman, a.k.a. âTony Alamo.â Alamo continued to direct activities at the TACM compound from his jail cell up until this raid. An emergency custody order was entered in November, 2008 for the children, including the six children of Appellant Bethany Myersâ whose ages ranged from four to fourteen years. This order was based on information gathered from the children themselves concerning their physical abuse and neglect by members of the TACM including their parents and guardians. The court found that the children's parents: 1) failed to protect them from physical abuse; 2) endorsed or facilitated illegal marriages of their underage female children to adult males; 3) failed to assure the children received adequate education; and, 4) failed to have their children immunized. The court ordered the Department of Human Services (DHS) continue to have custody of the children until the time where the DHS concluded that the parents were sufficiently reformed and cooperative in ameliorating the childrenâs living conditions. It was ruled that only at this time would parents and children be reunited. A subsequent hearing revealed that Appellant and her husband continued to expose children to this abusive atmosphere. DHS moved to terminate Appellant's parental rights. Appellant counter argued that by taking away her children, the DHS had interfered with her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. She alleged both that her physical presence on the compound and taking direction from Alamo was central to the free exercise of her religious beliefs. The termination of her parental rights interfered,therefore, with that free exercise. The Supreme Court found the DHSâs actions only incidentally affected Appellantâs exercise of her religion. âThe target of the requirements was not religious activity or exercise; instead the goal was to provide a safe environment for her children apart from the TACM compound.â The Court found the evidence in the trial courtâs records âclear and convincingâ to support the termination order, and affirmed the courtâs termination of her parental rights.

In October, 2008, a joint raid was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Arkansas State Police on the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries (TACM) compound in Fouke. As a result, many of the children found at the compound were taken into foster care. TACM was run by the convicted sex offender Bernie Hoffman, a.k.a. âTony Alamo.â Alamo continued to direct activities at the TACM compound from his jail cell up until this raid. An emergency custody order was entered in November, 2008 for the children, including the children of Appellants Carlos and Sophia Parrish. This order was based on information gathered from the children themselves concerning their physical abuse and neglect by members of the TACM including their parents and guardians. The court found that the children's parents: 1) failed to protect them from physical abuse; 2) endorsed or facilitated illegal marriages of their underage female children to adult males; 3) failed to assure the children received adequate education; and lastly, 4) failed to have their children immunized. The court ordered the Department of Human Services (DHS) continue to have custody of the children until the time where the DHS concluded that the parents were sufficiently reformed and cooperative in ameliorating the childrenâs living conditions. It was ruled that only at this time would parents and children be reunited. A subsequent hearing revealed that the Appellants continued to expose children to this abusive atmosphere. DHS moved to terminate Appellants' parental rights in December, 2009. Appellants counter argued that by taking away their children, the DHS had interfered with her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. They alleged both that physical presence on the compound and taking direction from Alamo was central to the free exercise of their religious beliefs. The termination of their parental rights interfered, therefore, with that free exercise. The Supreme Court found the DHSâs actions only incidentally affected Appellantâs exercise of their religion. âThe target of the requirements was not religious activity or exercise; instead the goal was to provide a safe environment for her children apart from the TACM compound.â The Court found the evidence in the trial courtâs records âclear and convincingâ to support the termination order, and affirmed the courtâs termination of their parental rights.

In October, 2008, a joint raid was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Arkansas State Police on the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries (TACM) compound in Fouke. As a result, many of the children found at the compound were taken into foster care. TACM was run by the convicted sex offender Bernie Hoffman, a.k.a. âTony Alamo.â Alamo continued to direct activities at the TACM compound from his jail cell up until this raid. An emergency custody order was entered in November, 2008 for the children, including the children of Appellant Alphonzo Reid. This order was based on information gathered from the children themselves concerning their physical abuse and neglect by members of the TACM including their parents and guardians. The court found that the children's parents: 1) failed to protect them from physical abuse; 2) endorsed or facilitated illegal marriages of their underage female children to adult males; 3) failed to assure the children received adequate education; and lastly, 4) failed to have their children immunized. The court ordered the Department of Human Services (DHS) continue to have custody of the children until the time where the DHS concluded that the parents were sufficiently reformed and cooperative in ameliorating the childrenâs living conditions. It was ruled that only at this time would parents and children be reunited. A subsequent hearing revealed that the Appellant continued to expose his children to this abusive atmosphere. DHS moved to terminate Appellant's parental rights. Appellant counter argued that by taking away his children, the DHS had interfered with his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He alleged both that physical presence on the compound and taking direction from Alamo was central to the free exercise of his religious beliefs. The termination of his parental rights interfered, therefore, with that free exercise. The Supreme Court found the DHSâs actions only incidentally affected Appellantâs exercise of his religion. âThe target of the requirements was not religious activity or exercise; instead the goal was to provide a safe environment for her children apart from the TACM compound.â The Court found the evidence in the trial courtâs records âclear and convincingâ to support the termination order, and affirmed the courtâs termination of his parental rights.

In October, 2008, a joint raid was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Arkansas State Police on the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries (TACM) compound in Fouke. As a result, many of the children found at the compound were taken into foster care. TACM was run by the convicted sex offender Bernie Hoffman, a.k.a. âTony Alamo.â Alamo continued to direct activities at the TACM compound from his jail cell up until this raid. An emergency custody order was entered in November, 2008 for the children, including the children of Appellant Greg Seago. This order was based on information gathered from the children themselves concerning their physical abuse and neglect by members of the TACM including their parents and guardians. The court found that the children's parents: 1) failed to protect them from physical abuse; 2) endorsed or facilitated illegal marriages of their underage female children to adult males; 3) failed to assure the children received adequate education; and last, 4) failed to have their children immunized. The court ordered the Department of Human Services (DHS) continue to have custody of the children until the time where the DHS concluded that the parents were sufficiently reformed and cooperative in ameliorating the childrenâs living conditions. It was ruled that only at this time would parents and children be reunited. A subsequent hearing revealed that the Appellant continued to expose his children to this abusive atmosphere. DHS moved to terminate Appellant's parental rights. Appellant counter argued that by taking away his children, the DHS had interfered with his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He alleged both that physical presence on the compound and taking direction from Alamo was central to the free exercise of his religious beliefs. The termination of his parental rights interfered, therefore, with that free exercise. The Supreme Court found the DHSâs actions only incidentally affected Appellantâs exercise of his religion. âThe target of the requirements was not religious activity or exercise; instead the goal was to provide a safe environment for her children apart from the TACM compound.â The Court found the evidence in the trial courtâs records âclear and convincingâ to support the termination order, and affirmed the courtâs termination of his parental rights.