Court Opinion

ID: 9642812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:09:44.106746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:52.690528
License: Public Domain

Larry D. Vaught, Judge, concurring. I agree that the trial udge, but write separately to clarify my view of the impact of Crosser v. Henson, 357 Ark. 635, 187 S.W.3d 848 (2004). As more fully set forth in my concurring opinion in Coffee v. Zolliecoffer, 93 Ark. App. 61 (2005), I believe that our supreme court has abrogated the parental preference in favor of a best interest analysis in which being a fit biological parent is only a factor to be considered, not a preference. While the majority ably sets forth the reasons why the evidence does not support a finding of unfitness on the part of Christina Camp, that does not end the inquiry. The trial court made no findings of fitness or unfitness, and in fact, made no findings at all to support its conclusion that it was in the child’s best interest for custody to be placed with the Ogielas. The court’s conclusion appears to be based only on findings that Christina had not demonstrated that she had the skills to be a primary caregiver and that the Ogielas had “assumed the responsibilities” for the care of the child. Both of these findings are clearly erroneous. The Ogielas “assumed” responsibility by conning Christina into turning the child over to them — allegedly to protect the child from their own son. Christina complied with all of the court’s directives, and she certainly did not abandon the child. The court also found no evidence that Christina was cohabiting or using drugs. Based on the evidence as set forth in the majority opinion, I have no trouble holding that the trial court’s best interest conclusion is clearly erroneous — even in light of the Crosser decision.