Opinion ID: 2782464
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Burden Going Forward

Text: When we decided this appeal the first time, we held that Tamera’s initial burden was to “put forth evidence that the guardianship is no longer necessary.” In re Guardianship of S.H. (I), 2012 Ark. 245, at 15, 409 S.W.3d at 316 We did not specify whether this was a “burden of going forward or . . . a burden of proof.” Id. at 22, 409 S.W.3d at 320 (Goodson, J., dissenting). We take the opportunity now to clarify the burden. A fit parent who consented to a guardianship puts forth sufficient evidence, and meets the burden going forward, by revoking consent and informing the court that the conditions necessitating the guardianship no longer exist. This is because a fit parent is presumed to act in his or her child’s best interest. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000); Linder v. 5 Cite as 2015 Ark. 75 Linder, 348 Ark. 322, 72 S.W.3d 841 (2002). Requiring any more from a fit parent would violate that parent’s constitutional right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of that parent’s children. Thus, a fit parent is presumed to act in the child’s best interest when consenting to the guardianship and, later, when terminating the guardianship. The circuit court erred when ruling on Tamera’s initial burden going forward. Again, the court initially ruled that Tamera had “gone forward with evidence that the guardianship is no longer necessary.” The court then allowed the Herringtons to rebut the presumption that termination of the guardianship was in S.H.’s best interest. However, the court’s letter opinion stated the opposite by finding “that Tamera did not put forth evidence sufficient to satisfy the court that the conditions necessitating the guardianship have been removed.” So the court allowed Tamera to proceed through the remainder of the October 2012 hearing and two more subsequent hearings without alerting her that the court had changed its mind about whether she had truly met her burden. While this reverse finding raises concerns, we focus instead on the court’s written order, which clearly misapplies the law. “To the extent that the court’s bench ruling conflicts with its written order, if at all, the written order controls over the court’s oral ruling.” Stills v. Stills, 2010 Ark. 132, at 12, 361 S.W.3d 823, 830. Specifically, the court’s order stated that “after comparing the circumstances which existed at the time the guardianship was granted and the circumstances which exist now, the court concludes that there has not been any material change.” This ruling was clearly erroneous: by bringing a petition to terminate a guardianship to which she had consented, 6 Cite as 2015 Ark. 75 Tamera did not have the burden to show a material change in circumstances. “A changeof-custody analysis using the material-change-of-circumstances standard should not be done in termination-of-guardianship cases.” Graham v. Matheny, 2009 Ark. 481, at 15, 346 S.W.3d at 281. The court erred by converting a termination-of-guardianship case into a change-of-custody case, which is the incorrect analysis. In a termination-of-guardianship case, a parent’s only burden is to put forth evidence that the guardianship is no longer necessary. Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-401(b)(3) (Repl. 2012); In re Guardianship of S.H.(I), supra. Therefore, in this case, the circuit court erred when it ruled that Tamera failed to meet her burden going forward. This “burden” is neither an affirmative burden of proof nor a burden to prove a “material” change. Here, Tamera consented to the guardianship in August 2008. There has never been a finding that she was unfit. (Indeed, the psychologist testified at the April 2011 hearing that Tamera was a fit parent.) When Tamera withdrew her consent in her June 2010 petition to terminate the guardianship and testified that the conditions necessitating the guardianship no longer existed, she met her burden going forward that the guardianship was no longer necessary.