Court Opinion

ID: 9680207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:25:25.201119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:26.860220
License: Public Domain

Karen R. Baker, Judge, dissenting. I agree that this case must be reversed because it is undisputed that there was no oral testimony or sworn written statement of a qualified professional as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-211(b)(1) (Repl. 2004). While I agree that this failure renders the trial court’s finding of incapacity clearly erroneous, I disagree as to the disposition of the case. Rather than remand for further proceedings, I would simply reverse. Because appellees failed to prove their case, and there are no further proceedings to be conducted. The majority finds, and I agree, that the Petition for Guardianship should have been denied. If the court had done as it should have and denied the petition, that denial would have concluded the litigation. The majority is remanding this case to afford appellee the opportunity to produce evidence sufficient to comply with the statutory requirements. This is not our usual disposition of a case once the case has been heard or had a fair opportunity to be presented. See Moore v. City of Blytheville, 1 Ark. App. 35, 612 S.W.2d 327 (1981). I see nothing in the facts of this case that persuades me that we should depart from our customary practice. Therefore, I would not remand the case for further proceedings. Agree in part; dissent in part.