Court Opinion

ID: 9620706
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:46:23.926714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:53.430659
License: Public Domain

Robert J. Gladwin, Judge, dissenting. I dissent. Al- though I agree that the trial court erred in not appointing an attorney to appellant, I believe this case must be dismissed because the order that appellant appeals from is not a final appealable order. When ruling on matters ofjurisdiction, we are obligated to resolve the issue on our own, regardless of whether the parties bring the issue to the court’s attention and regardless of the parties’ posture on the issue. Timmons v. McCauley, 71 Ark. App. 97, 27 S.W.3d 437 (2000). Appeals in juvenile cases are made in the same time and manner provided for appeals from circuit court. Ark. R. App. P. — Civ. 2(c). In juvenile cases where an out-of-home placement has been ordered, orders resulting from adjudication and disposition hearings are final appealable orders. Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 2(c)(3)(A). In this case, there has been no out-of-home placement ordered. According to Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(38)(A) (Supp. 2003), an “out-of-home placement” means: (i) Placement in a home or facility other than placement in a youth services center, a detention facility, or the home of a parent or guardian of the juvenile; or (ii) Placement in the home of an individual other than a parent or guardian, not including any placement where the court has ordered that the placement be made permanent and ordered that no further reunification services or six-month reviews are required. [Emphasis added.] Paragraph 4 of the June 25, 2004 order appealed from specifically states that “The boys will be in mom’s physical custody and remain in her home.” Paragraph 11 further provides that “The case plan goal will be to maintain the children in the home, and the Court does approve that goal.” Also, although DHS’s case plan was not incorporated into the court’s order, its provisions were approved. On page 8 of the case plan under section VIII, the question is posed “Is the client in an out-of-home placement?” An “X” is placed next to the box marked “No,” and the box entitled “Reason for Removal” is blank. Nowhere in the order are the children, or the father for that matter, specifically ordered to be removed from the home. In this case, the majority has ostensibly held that any separation of a child from his or her parent is an out-of-home placement. I understand that this interpretation affords appellant his only opportunity of appellate review; however, the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure require that an out-of-home placement be ordered before an order resulting from an adjudication and disposition hearing constitutes a final appealable order. I simply cannot ignore the “out-of-home placement” aspect of Rule 2(c)(3)(A).