 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Banks v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Services6/22/2005
if the court finds that there is an appropriate permanency placement plan for the juvenile.
(B) This section does not require that a permanency planning hearing be held as a prerequisite to the filing of a petition to terminate parental rights, or as a prerequisite to the court's considering a petition to terminate parental rights.
(3) An order forever terminating parental rights shall be based upon a finding by clear and convincing evidence:
(A) That it is in the best interest of the juvenile, including consideration of the following factors:
(i) The likelihood that the juvenile will be adopted if the termination petition is granted;
We note that Tiffany May testified that the children do not have any health problems that would prevent them from being readily adopted, that they have been in the same foster home since they were brought into DHS custody, and that those foster parents want to adopt the children. This testimony was uncontroverted. Furthermore, D.B. was diagnosed with ADHD while in the home of her foster parents and it was the foster parents who had provided her with medication. Accordingly, it is wholly disingenuous to suggest that the foster parents did not fully appreciate the ramifications of D.B.'s diagnosis. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in finding that there was an appropriate permanency plan for D.B. and B.B.
We next consider Patrick's arguments. He first argues that the termination of his parental rights should be set aside because the court had no jurisdiction due to DHS's failure to comply with Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) and that its failure to perfect service upon him rendered any judgment void. As noted above, Patrick became a fugitive after he was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine. He asserts that there was no affidavit to support the publication notice nor was there constructive notice issued by the Sebastian County Circuit Clerk found in the court transcript and that there was effectively no notice given because the publication notice was incorrect in that the hearing date was changed to Thursday, August 19, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. We disagree.
In making his argument, Patrick has relied on the wrong rule of civil procedure. The record is clear that Patrick was represented by an attorney throughout the proceedings and service was properly made upon his counsel of record pursuant to Rule 5 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court had jurisdiction.
Patrick's second argument concerning the permanency plan for D.B. and B.B. is identical to Teresa's third argument, and we reject it for the same reasons.
Affirmed.
Bird and Crabtree, JJ., agree.
Page 1 2 3 Arkansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|