Opinion ID: 3211628
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Points of Appeal

Text: For her first point on appeal, Temika asserts that the circuit court erred when it applied the wrong legal standard for the termination proceeding because it applied the findings of the temporary order to the permanent guardianship. Temika further contends that the circuit court erred because it did not take into consideration the fundamental liberty interest of Temika and did not afford Temika the presumption that, as a natural parent, she was a fit parent. Finally, Temika contends that the circuit court erred by placing the burden on Temika to prove that the guardianship was no longer necessary rather than affording her the 6 Cite as 2016 Ark. 243 fit-parent presumption and shifting the burden to Kisha. We first turn to the issue of the fit-parent presumption because it is critical to our analysis. In Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), the United States Supreme Court recognized a parent’s fundamental liberty interest in the care, control, and custody of one’s child, and in accordance, we have adopted the presumption that a fit parent acts in his or her child’s best interest. Linder v. Linder, 348 Ark. 322, 72 S.W.3d 841 (2002). In In Re Guardianship of W.L., 2015 Ark. 289, at 7–8, 467 S.W.3d 129, 133, we discussed naturalparent rights and the fit-parent presumption. We explained that “we will not lightly intrude on this fundamental right,” and a fit parent may withdraw earlier consent to a permanent guardianship. Here, on May 1, 2012, the circuit court entered the temporary guardianship finding that Temika was unfit: [Temika] is not fit and proper to provide for the safety and welfare of the minor child. Kisha should have and is hereby granted temporary guardianship of M.B. Subsequent to the temporary order, on July 2, 2012, the parties agreed to a guardianship, and the circuit court entered a permanent guardianship to that effect. Absent from the July 2, 2012 order is a finding of unfitness. When the permanent guardianship was entered, the parties consented to the guardianship, and no finding was made. Further, the temporary-guardianship order and its findings, including the finding of unfitness, expired upon entry of the permanent guardianship. See Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-218 (2)(A) (Repl. 2012) (“If the incapacitated person is a minor, the initial period for the appointment of a temporary 7 Cite as 2016 Ark. 243 guardian shall be for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days.”); See also Kirk v. N. Little Rock Special Sch. Dist., 174 Ark. 943, 298 S.W. 212, 213 (1927)(citations omitted) (“It is the duty of the courts to decide actual controversies by a judgment or decree which can be carried into effect, but not to give opinions upon controversies or declare principles of law which cannot be executed or which cannot have any practical effect in settling the rights of the litigants under the judgment or decree rendered.) Here, because the temporary order was simply that, temporary, it expired and was superseded by the entry of the permanent order, and from July 2, 2012, forward, the fit-parent presumption applied. Accordingly, based on the record before us, the circuit erred by not affording Temika the fit-parent presumption. Having established that as of July 2, 2012, Temika was a fit parent, we next turn to the order at issue and its findings regarding the guardianship. At the crux of this case is the court’s August 11, 2014 order, which states in pertinent part, [Temika] has failed to establish in her case in chief, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the guardianship should be terminated. . . . This Court finds that the guardianship for [M.B.] is still necessary, and it is not in her best interests that the guardianship be terminated at this time. With regard to termination of guardianships, Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-401(b)(3) provides that (b) A guardianship may be terminated by court order after such notice as the court may require: ... (3) If, for any other reason, the guardianship is no longer necessary or for the best interest of the ward. (Emphasis added.) In In re Guardianship of W.L., 2015 Ark. 289, 467 S.W.3d 129, we interpreted this 8 Cite as 2016 Ark. 243 statute and clarified this court’s holdings with regard to the termination of guardianships: Termination-of-guardianship cases have been in a recent state of flux. We tried to bring some sense to this area of the law in Graham v. Matheny. However, while the Graham court acknowledged that termination-of-guardianship cases were governed by a disjunctive statute, it noted that if the ward is a child, the circuit court must still consider best interest, which has the effect of turning the test into a conjunctive one—the or becomes an and. 2009 Ark. 481, at 14–15, 346 S.W.3d 273, 281. We attempted to clarify the guardianship analysis in In re Guardianship of S.H. (1), 2012 Ark. 245, 409 S.W.3d 307 (In re S.H. (1)). There, we recognized and reaffirmed a fit parent’s “fundamental liberty interest in the care, control, and custody of her child.” 2012 Ark. 245, at 8–9, 409 S.W.3d at 313. The United States Supreme Court acknowledged this principle in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), and in accordance we have adopted a presumption that a fit parent acts in his or her child's best interest. See, e.g., Linder v. Linder, 348 Ark. 322, 72 S.W.3d 841 (2002). The issue in In re S.H. (1) was whether a fit parent who consented to a guardianship had the burden to prove, under Graham, both prongs of the statutory test in order for the court to terminate the guardianship. We reasoned that “parents who have not been found unfit do not relinquish their fundamental liberty interest in raising their children by consenting to a guardianship.” 2012 Ark. 245, at 14, 409 S.W.3d at 316. Accordingly, we adopted a two-step, burden-shifting procedure when a fit parent who consented to a guardianship later moves to terminate that guardianship: A natural parent who has not been deemed unfit is entitled to the presumption that he or she is acting in the child's best interest, even after consenting to a guardianship. Therefore, when a natural parent, who has not been deemed unfit and who has consented to a guardianship, files a petition to terminate that guardianship, that parent must put forth evidence that the guardianship is no longer necessary. Once the court is satisfied that the conditions necessitating the guardianship have been removed, the guardians shoulder the burden of rebutting the presumption that termination is in the child's best interest. Id. at 15, 409 S.W.3d at 316. We remanded the case for the circuit court to reevaluate the case applying this procedure. When that case returned to us after remand, we clarified the test in two ways. See In re Guardianship of S.H.(2), 2015 Ark. 75, 455 S.W.3d 313 (“In re S.H. (2)”). First, we said that a fit parent meets the burden that a guardianship is no longer necessary under the statute by revoking consent. Id. at 14, 455 S.W.3d at 322. Second, we said that the guardians can rebut this presumption by proving best interest by clear 9 Cite as 2016 Ark. 243 and convincing evidence. Id. We noted that this conjunctive burden-shifting test was inconsistent with the disjunctive statute, but nevertheless ruled that we were bound by the law-of-the-case doctrine. Ultimately, we reversed the circuit court’s order keeping the guardianship in place and ordered the court to return the child to her mother, who was fit. We are not bound by law of the case here and can return to the statute’s plain language, which states that “a guardianship may be terminated by court order . . . [i]f, for any other reason the guardianship is no longer necessary or for the best interest of the ward.” Ark. Code Ann.§ 28-65-401(b)(3). Parents have a fundamental right to raise their children. We will not lightly intrude on this fundamental right. We have already said that a guardianship is no longer necessary once a fit parent revokes an earlier-given consent. This is because a fit parent is presumed to be acting in the child's best interest. By petitioning to terminate the guardianship and revoking consent, the fit parent, who has the child’s best interest at heart, informs the court that the guardianship is no longer necessary. That is sufficient to meet the statutory requirement where the court “may” terminate the guardianship. In other words, a guardianship is no longer necessary “per the statute” when a fit parent revokes consent. The fit parent does not have to prove anything else. The statute does contain another method for the guardianship to be terminated, that is, by showing it is no longer in the ward’s best interest. However, given that the legislature has created a disjunctive test, the parent can move to terminate under either prong. This ruling is consistent with the statutory text and a fit parent’s fundamental liberty interest in the care, control, and custody of his or her child. Furthermore, the burden of proof does not and cannot shift to the guardians when a guardianship is terminated based on a fit parent's revocation of consent. Simply put, a fit parent’s decision regarding his or her children is conclusive. See Troxel, 530 U.S. at 68–69, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (“[S]o long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i.e., is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent’s children.”). In re W.L., 2015 Ark. 289, at 6–8, 467 S.W.3d at 132–34. Accordingly, Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-401(b)(3) plainly states that the method to terminate a guardianship is disjunctive: A guardianship may be terminated by court order if the guardianship is no longer necessary or for the best interest of the ward. Here, however, the circuit court applied the two methods in a conjunctive manner that required Temika to 10 Cite as 2016 Ark. 243 meet both methods as if both were requirements to terminate the guardianship. In its August 11, 2014 order, the circuit court stated as follows: [Temika] has failed to establish in her case in chief, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the guardianship should be terminated. . . . This Court finds that the guardianship for [M.B.] is still necessary, and it is not in her best interests that the guardianship be terminated at this time. (Emphasis added.) This finding is an incorrect application of the law. The circuit court failed to follow the plain language of the statute. As we explained in In Re W.L., the conjunctive standard is not the standard under Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-401. Although the circuit court did not have the benefit of our opinion in In Re W.L., it is certainly applicable to this situation. Based on our holding in In Re W.L., here, at the entry of the circuit court’s August 11, 2014 order, Temika was a fit parent, revoked her consent to the guardianship, and the burden shifted to Kisha to demonstrate that the guardianship was still necessary or in M.B.’s best interest. Stated differently, when Temika revoked her consent, the statute was triggered, the presumption applied and the burden shifted to Kisha. Therefore, we agree with Temika that the circuit court erred on this first point and reverse and remand this matter to the circuit court to apply the correct legal standard. Although we reverse the circuit court on this point, we offer no opinion as to whether the evidence presented at the termination hearing was sufficient to meet Kisha’s burden to establish that the guardianship should not be terminated; rather, we remand for the circuit court to make that determination using the correct legal standard. 11 Cite as 2016 Ark. 243
For her second point on appeal, Temika asserts that the circuit court erred by granting Kisha’s motion for directed verdict. Temika contends that the circuit court erred because she was not given the fit-parent presumption despite having revoked her consent to the guardianship. Temika’s argument here is the same as addressed in her first point. Based on our discussion above, we agree with Temika and hold that the circuit court erred on this point. We reverse and remand this matter to the circuit court to enter an order applying the correct standard.
For her final point on appeal, Temika contends that the circuit court erred by admitting the evidence from Facebook, screenshots made by “Meka Rochelle,” on Beasley’s Facebook page, and photos of Temika that Beasley posted on his Facebook page. Temika asserts that the evidence should have been excluded because the posts and comments were not authenticated. Temika contends that the evidence was not admissible in light of her testimony that she did not remember making some of the comments, her suggestion that Beasley might have used her account to make the comments, and her testimony that she had no control over Beasley’s account. On appeal, we will not reverse a circuit court’s ruling on the admission of evidence absent an abuse of discretion. Sera v. State, 341 Ark. 415, 17 S.W.3d 61 (2000). In evidentiary determinations, a trial court has wide discretion. Davis v. State, 350 Ark. 22, 86 S.W.3d 872 (2002). 12 Cite as 2016 Ark. 243 With regard to authentication of a document, authentication of a document is a condition precedent to admissibility and is governed by Rule 901 of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence. Authentication is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. Ark. R. Evid. 901(a). Pursuant to Rule 901, acceptable methods of authentication include the following: (b) Illustrations. By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule: (1) Testimony of Witness With Knowledge. Testimony of a witness with knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be. .... (4) Distinctive Characteristics and the Like. Appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances. The requirements of authentication and identification under Rule 901 are satisfied when the circuit court in its discretion is satisfied that the physical evidence presented is genuine and in reasonable probability has not been tampered with. Guydon v. State, 344 Ark. 251, 39 S.W.3d 767 (2001). Further, we have held that text messages are properly authenticated when circumstantial evidence ties the party to the messages. Gulley v. State, 2012 Ark. 368, at 15, 423 S.W.3d 569, 579. Here, Temika testified that “Meka Rochelle” was the name on her Facebook account, and all the comments were made under that name. She identified the photographs contained on the Facebook pages as photos of her, and she testified that she posted the comment on Beasley’s Facebook page on June 7, 2014. Under these facts, we cannot say that the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting the screenshots into evidence. We do not find error 13 Cite as 2016 Ark. 243 on this point and affirm the circuit court. Reversed and remanded in part; affirmed in part; court of appeals’ opinion vacated. Special Justice DEBBY LINTON FERGUSON joins in this opinion. BRILL, C.J., and DANIELSON and WOOD, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part. WYNNE, J., not participating.