Opinion ID: 1399443
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Opportunity to Cure

Text: Jason contends that the circuit court erred in granting the adoption and terminating his parental rights under the provisions of Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-9-207 (Supp.2005) because he was not given the opportunity to cure as provided by Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-9-220(c)(1) (Supp.2005), which provides: In any 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: (1) Abandonment. (A) A child support order shall provide notice to the non-custodial parent that failure to pay child support or to visit the child for at least one (1) year shall provide the custodial parent with the right to initiate proceedings to terminate the parental rights of the non-custodial parent. (B) If the notification clause required by subdivision (c)(1)(A) of this section is not in the child support order, the custodial parent, prior to termination of parental rights, shall notify the non-custodial parent that he or she intends to petition the court to terminate parental rights. (C)(i) The non-custodial parent shall have three (3) months from the filing of the petition to pay a substantial amount of past due payments owed and to establish a relationship with his or her child or children. (ii) Once the requirements under subdivision (c)(1)(C)(i) of this section are met, the custodial parent shall not be permitted to proceed with the adoption nor the termination of parental rights of the non-custodial parent. (iii) The court may terminate parental rights of the non-custodial parent upon a showing that: (a) Child support payments have not been made for one (1) year or the non-custodial parent has not visited the child in the preceding year and the non-custodial parent has not fulfilled the requirements of subdivision (c)(1)(C)(i) of this section; and (b) It would be in the best interest of the child to terminate the parental relationship. The record reveals that Jason had the opportunity to cure his failure to pay child support, pursuant to section 9-9-220(c)(1)(C), but he chose not to do so. The petition in this case was filed on March 28, 2006. Under section 9-9-220(c)(1)(C), Jason had three months from that date, or until June 28, 2006, to pay a substantial amount of past due payments owed and to establish a relationship with his child. No payments were made. Although Jason contended, at the hearing on July 5, 2006, that he paid the funds into a separate account, he never deposited those funds into the registry of the court nor did he pay any of those funds to the mother. Even after receiving notice that an adoption petition was filed, he still refused to comply with the court order regarding child support. By his own actions, Jason did nothing to enforce any right he might have had to cure his failure to pay child support. In sum, the circuit court found that Jason's consent was not necessary for the adoption and that it would be in D.P.'s best interest to grant the petition for adoption. We recognize that the circuit court did not conclude, as we do, that Jason is collaterally estopped from challenging the validity of the marriage. It is axiomatic that this court can affirm a circuit court if the right result is reached even if it is for a different reason. See, e.g., Alphin v. Alphin, 364 Ark. 332, 219 S.W.3d 160 (2005). We affirm the circuit court's granting of the petition for adoption. Court of appeals reversed; circuit court affirmed. BROWN and WILLS, JJ., dissent.