Court Opinion

ID: 9733467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:08:33.393946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:41.826830
License: Public Domain

Margaret Meads, Judge, dissenting. I agree with my and the trial court that the consent of Heather Shorter to. her daughter’s adoption is not required. I do not agree, however, that adoption is in A.R.’s best interests, and I would reverse. It is clear to me from the testimony of both Heather Shorter and Jerry Reeves that A.R. has a genuine, loving relationship with her mother. Despite the instability in Heather’s personal life, she tried to protect A.R. by removing her from a stressful home life and asking for the Reeveses’ help. Heather testified: I was grateful to Mr. and Mrs. Reeves for caring for my daughter. I appreciate it so much, because Jerry and Judy really mean a lot to me. They’re really good friends. And the fact they would go out of their way to help me care for my daughter tells me a lot about them. They are great people, and they love my daughter dearly, and so do I.. Heather also described the two-week Christmas visit with A.R., stating: [W]hen I was not working we would go to the park to play ball. We would go to movies and shopping. She related to me just fine. We had no problems.... She would come up to me, give me hugs, and tell me that she loves me and give me kisses. Finally, Jerry Reeves testified, “A.R. cares about her mama. She sees her mama, and wants to see her.” I believe this evidence shows that A.R. and her mother have developed an ongoing relationship, and I do not think it is in A.R.’s best interests for this relationship to be severed permanently. It does not appear that the trial court took this relationship into account when it granted the petition for adoption. In adoption proceedings, we review the record de novo but will not reverse the probate judge’s decision unless it is clearly erroneous or against a preponderance of the evidence, after giving due regard to his opportunity to determine the credibility of the witnesses. Ark. R. Civ. P. 52; McKee v. Bates, 10 Ark. App. 51, 661 S.W.2d 415 (1983). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Gregg v. Ark. Dep’t. of Human Servs., 58 Ark. App. 337, 952 S.W.2d 183 (1997). In my opinion, after reviewing the evidence before us, I am convinced that the trial court erred when it granted this adoption. I would reverse and dismiss the adoption petition. Hart, Jennings, and Neal, JJ., agree.