Opinion ID: 1860146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Grant a Hearing

Text: Alternatively, the Hendrixes argue that the circuit court erred in refusing to exercise jurisdiction and hear the issue of visitation under section 9-9-215(a)(1). The question raised is whether under Amendment 80, [3] the probate division of the circuit court, which had jurisdiction over the adoption, also had jurisdiction to hear the issue of visitation, which is an issue within the jurisdiction of the domestic relations division of the circuit court. We are unable to address this issue because the Hendrixes do not develop this argument sufficiently to allow appellate review. The Hendrixes argue in their brief that the circuit court erred in trying to force them to file a petition in the domestic relations division and that no new petition was required. They provide in support of this argument a cite to Amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution; however, there is no discussion of the application of Amendment 80. They further argue that the effect of the trial court's ruling denies the deceased biological grandparents their day in court and flies in the face of a clear statutory duty to conduct a hearing. There is no argument beyond that noted above. This court will not consider an argument, even a constitutional one, if the appellant makes no convincing argument or cites no authority to support it. See, e.g., Wooten v. State, 351 Ark. 241, 91 S.W.3d 63 (2002). Further, if appellant's point is not apparent without further research, this court will not hear the matter. Id. We simply will not address issues on appeal that are not appropriately developed. Spears v. Spears, 339 Ark. 162, 3 S.W.3d 691 (1999). Affirmed.