Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 548 

## ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV No. CV

- 17

- 65
JAMES ANDREW MARSHAL L APPELLANT

V.

SETH ROBERT RUBRIGHT AND MINOR CHILD APPELLEES Opinion Delivered: October 25, 2017
APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 04PR

- 16

- 616 ]

HONORABLE XOLLIE DUNCAN, JUDGE
AFFIRMED

RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge James Andrew Marshall appeals the Benton County Circuit Court order granting the adoption petition of Seth Robert Rubright. On appeal, James argues that the circuit court erred by (1) failing to make specific credibility findings and (2) finding that he failed significantly and without justifiable cause to communicate with his son , B. M. We affirm. James married Valerie Rubright (formerly Wools ey) on August 30, 2010. They h ave one child, B.M. 1 In July 2011, James and Valerie separated, and on April 18, 2012, the Benton County Circuit Court entered their divorce d ecree. The decree granted Valerie primary custody of B.M. , subject to Ja mes having vis it ation . It further provided that James

1 B.M. was born on February 8, 2008.Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 548

2 pay Valerie child support in the amount of $66 a week. On November 18, 2013, Valerie
married Seth. On December 10, 2013, the Benton County Circuit C ourt entered a one

- year order of protection of B.M. and Valerie against James . The order resulte d from an incident
wherein James threatened to break B.M.’s neck and then sent Valerie weblinks to stories
about fathers who killed their children and the children’s mothers during disputes over child custody and child support. On June 30, 2014, James pled guilty to first

- degree terrorist ic threatening associated with the incident. The court sentenced him to three years’ probation and thirteen days in the county jail. On July 9, 2014, the circuit court entered an order finding James in contempt for failing to pay child support to Valerie. On October 8, 2014, the cir cuit court entered a compliance

- review order , finding that James h ad resumed paying child support.
On December 2, 2014, the circuit court entered a second order of protection of
B.M. and Valerie against James lasting th r ough February 24, 2015. On February 15, 2015, the circuit court extended the order for five years. On June 2, 2015, the State of Arkansas filed a petition to revoke James’s probation. It alleged that James had violated the order o f protection , violated a no

- contact order with Valerie, and failed to report to his probation officer. On April 2, 2016, the State ame nded the petition to allege that James committed
two counts of first

- degree terroristic threatening and one count of harassing comm unication on November 18, 2014, after James had posted a series of threatening messages to Valerie and B.M. on his Facebook page

. The messages included the statement that James hopedCite as 2017 Ark. App. 548

3 someone would put a bullet in Valerie’s neck an d a meat cle a ver in B.M.’s head. He also posted the comment: “You [expletive] sue me again and it will be the worst [expletive] mistake you’ll regret. I promise you that.” Around that time , James also posted on Facebook that his location was Siloam Springs, where Valerie lived. On May 5, 2016, the circuit court revoked James’s probation and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment.
On May 16 , 2016, James pled guilty to two counts of first

- degree terroristic threatening, one count of violating an order of protection, and one count of harassing
communications. He received six years’ imprisonment to run concurrently with his
revocation sentence. On July 26, 2016, Valerie’s hu sband , Seth , filed a petition for adoption of B.M. In the petition, Seth alleged tha t because James had not had contact with B.M. since October 2012, his consent to the adoption was not required pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated
section 9 -9- 207 (Repl. 2015 ). James objected to the petition. The court held a hearing on October 19, 2016. At the hearing, the court granted
Seth’s oral motion to amend his petition to additionally allege that James’s consent to the adoption was not required because James had fa iled to pay child support for one year. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court orally granted the petition

. The court noted that
the test “stated by the attorneys [is] whether [James] failed substantially, and without justifiable cause, to communicate or support [B.M.] for a period of one year, and therefore, his consent is not required or is being unreasonably withheld.” On November 1, 2016, the court entered a decree of adoption. In the order, the
court found thatCite as 2017 Ark. App. 548

4 under the totality of the circumsta nces and the credible evidence presented, [James]’s consent to this adoption is not necessary and is being unreasonably withheld due to his substantial lack of contact and communication for a period of one

- year as well as his substantial failure to support the minor child for a period of one year from August 2013 through August 2014 and that his significant failures are without justifiable
cause. James timely appealed the adoption decree to this court. On appeal, James argues that the
circuit court erred by (1) not makin g specific credibility findings and (2) finding that he failed significantly without justifiable cause to communicate with B .M. We first address James ’s argument that the court erred by failing to make specific credibility finding s. He claims that the court erred when it “did not describe or point to any testimony or evidence as credible or otherwise.” He asserts that Martini v. Price , 2016 Ark. 472, 507 S.W.3d 486, imposes a duty on the circuit court to fashion fact ual findings on evidence and witness credibility in adoption cases. We disagree. Our reading of Martini reveals no such duty. See Martini , 2016 Ark. 472, 507 S.W.3d 486. Further, James could have requested the court to make findings of
fact under Arkansas Rule of Civil Proced ure 52 , but he did not. I n the absence of a statute or rule requiring specific findings of fact or a timely request for specific findings under Rule 52, the appellate court will ordinarily presume that the circuit court made findings necessary to support its conclusion

. Chaffin v. Ark

. Dep’ t of Human Servs. , 2015 Ark. App. 522, 471
S.W.3d 251. Accordingly , James’s argument is meritless. James next argues that the circuit court erred by finding that his consent to the adoption was not required because he failed to communicate with B.M. for one year without an adequate excuse. He claims that the order s of protection prevented him from contacting B.M. and that Valerie also barred him from B.M.Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 548

5 We need not address James’s failure

- to

- communicate argument beca use he has failed to sufficiently challenge two alternative bases for the court’s finding that his consent was not required

. When an appellant fails to attack a circuit court’s independent, alternative basis for its ruling, we will not reverse. May v. Stat e , 2016 Ark. App. 605, 509 S.W.3d 14. Here, the circuit court found that James’s consent was “ not necessary and is being unreasonably withheld due to his substantial lack of contact and communication for a period of one

- year as well as his substantial fail ure to support the minor child for a period of one year from August 2013 through August 2014 and that his significant failures are without justifiable

cause .” (Emphasis added.) The first alternative basis is the court’s finding that James’s consent was be ing unreasonably withheld. Arkansas Code Annotated section 9 -9- 220(c)(3) states that (c) [i]n addition to any other proceeding provided by law, the relationship of parent and child may be terminated by a court order issued under this subchapter on any ground provided by other law for termination of the relationship, or on the following grounds:

. . . . (3) [t] hat in the case of a parent not having custody of a child, his or her consent is being unreasonably withheld contrary to the best interest of t he child. Here, the court specifically stated in its written order that James’s consent was “ unreasonably
withheld .” (Emphasis added.) 2 Yet, James does not challenge this finding on appeal. The second alternative basis is the court’s finding that James si gnifican tly failed to provide support for B.M. Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 9 -9- 207(a)(2) ,

2 Seth did not plead section 9 -9- 220(c)(3) in his petition for adoption. However, James did not challenge the court’s consideration of that st atute at the hearing nor does he challenge it on appeal.Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 548

6 c onsent to adoption is not required of a parent whose child is in the custody of another if the parent f or a period of at least one year has failed si gnificantly without justifiable cause (i)
to communicate with the child or (ii) to provide for the care and support of the child as required by law or judicial decree. ( E mphasis added

. ) In this case, the court specifically stated that James’s consent was not required “ due to . . . his substantial failure to support the minor child for a period of one year from August 2013 through August 2014.” Yet, James does not present this as an issue on appeal. I n a few sentences in James’s brief, he acknowledges that he did not make child

- support payments from Fe bruary 2014 through August 2014 but states that he “caught up every penny in October of 2014.” However, James does not further develop his argument

. See Orintas v. Point Lookout Prop. Owners Ass’ n , 2015 Ark. App. 648, at 2, 476 S.W.3d 174 , 175 (“The failure to develop a point legally or factually is reason enough to affirm the circuit court.”)

. Because James does not sufficiently
challen ge the circuit cour t’s two alternative , independent bases for finding that his consent to the adoption was not required , we must affirm the court’s granting of the adoption petition.
Affirmed.
V AUGHT and H IXSON , JJ., agree. Niblock Law Firm, PLC , by: Raymond L. Niblock , for appellant. Clark & Spence , by: George R. Spence , for appellee Seth Rubright.