Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 536

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION III 

No. CV-16-559

ALYSSA EKBERG AND JERRY 

ASHMORE

APPELLANTS

V.

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN 

SERVICES, AND E.H. AND H.A., 

MINOR CHILDREN 

APPELLEES

OPINION DELIVERED: NOVEMBER 9, 2016

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 

ELEVENTH DIVISION 

[60JV-14-1002] 

HONORABLE PATRICIA JAMES, 

JUDGE

SUPPLEMENTAL ABSTRACT 

AND ADDENDUM ORDERED

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge

In this termination-of-parental-rights case, Alyssa Ekberg and Jerry Ashmore appeal 

the Pulaski County Circuit Court’s order filed April 8, 2016, terminating their parental 

rights to their two children, E.H. (born October 26, 2007) and H.A. (born December 18, 

2013).1

 On appeal, the parents argue that there was insufficient evidence to (1) support the 

allegation of abuse at adjudication, (2) that termination was in the best interest of the 

children by clear and convincing evidence, and (3) that aggravating circumstances existed as 

a ground for termination. We do not reach the merits of appellants’ argument because their 

appellate brief does not comply with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-9 (2016).

 1

E.H.’s biological father is Robbie Harper, who consented to termination of his 

parental rights on January 15, 2016. Jerry Ashmore is the stepparent of E.H. and the 

biological father of H.A.
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 536

2 

At the heart of the Arkansas Department of Human Services’ (DHS) case is the 

bruising found on E.H. in May 2014 and the similar bruising that had previously occurred 

in Texas when Jerry admittedly used a belt to discipline E.H. We review termination-ofparental-rights cases de novo. Villaros v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. App. 399, at 

4–6, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___. The abstract contained in appellants’ brief fails to include an 

abridgment of the testimony from the record on pages 881–82. 

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-9 (e)(2)(C) provides that an appellant’s petition on 

appeal shall include

[a]n abstract or abridgment of the transcript that consists of an impartial 

condensation of only such material parts of the testimony of the witnesses and 

colloquies between the court and counsel and other parties as are necessary to an 

understanding of all questions presented to the court for decision. 

Because the questions and answers contained in the record as set forth above are a material 

part of the testimony, these pages in the record must be included in the abstract. Therefore, 

the abstract must be supplemented.

Rule 6-9 also provides in relevant part as follows:

Following the signature and certificate of service, the appellant’s petition shall contain 

an addendum which shall include true and legible photocopies of the order, 

judgment, decree, ruling, or letter opinion from which the appeal is taken, a 

copy of the notice of appeal, and any other relevant pleadings, documents, or exhibits 

essential to an understanding of the case[.]

Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(e)(2)(E) (emphasis added). Further, Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 

4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) (2016) provides that all notices of appeal must be included in the addendum,

along with “any other pleading or document in the record that is essential for the appellate 

court to affirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal.” 
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 536

3 

In the instant case, appellants’ notices of appeal are included in the record but are not 

included in the addendum. Further, the psychological evaluation of the parents conducted 

by Dr. Paul Deyoub and contained in the addendum as “Petitioner’s Exhibit 7” is missing 

page 20. Because the rules above require that the notice of appeal be included along with 

any document essential for this court to understand the case, appellants must supplement the 

addendum with the notices and the missing page of Dr. Deyoub’s evaluation. Rule 4-2 

also provides that if this court determines that deficiencies or omissions in the abstract or 

addendum need to be corrected, but complete rebriefing is not needed, then the court will 

order appellant to file a supplemental abstract or addendum within seven calendar days to 

provide the additional materials from the record to the members of the appellate court. Ark. 

Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(4). 

Accordingly, we order appellants to file a supplemental abstract and addendum 

within seven calendar days of the date of this opinion. We encourage appellants to carefully 

and thoroughly review our rules to ensure that no additional deficiencies are present. Ark. 

Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(4).

 Supplemental abstract and addendum ordered. 

 ABRAMSON and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree. 

Law Office of Kathryn L. Hudson, by: Kathryn L. Hudson, for appellants.

Andrew Firth, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.

Chrestman Group, PLLC, by: Keith L. Chrestman, attorney ad litem for minor 

children.