Court Opinion

ID: 9640604
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:09:35.529805+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:31.007093
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING APRIL 18, 1994 Kent L. Tharel, for appellant. No response. Per Curiam. We deny Ms. Nance’s petition for rehearing, but we do agree that a clarification is needed of our earlier opinion as it discussed Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-338 (Repl. 1993). In her petition, Ms. Nance contends, contrary to this court’s decision, that Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-338(a) (Repl. 1993) applies to this case. Under that provision, Nance points out that the juvenile court’s disposition in this case was limited to one of the following: (1) return Mary Lila to Ms. Nance; (2) authorize a plan to terminate Mary Lila’s relationship with Ms. Nance; (3) place Mary Lila in long-term foster care; or (4) allow Mary Lila to continue in an out-of-home placement for a specified, limited period of time. 1 Out-of-home placement is defined in Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(26) (Repl. 1993) as follows: (A) Placement in a home or facility other than the home of the parent or guardian from whose custody the court has removed the juvenile; or (B) Placement in the home of a relative; provided, however, this definition shall not include circumstances where the court has discontinued orders for delivery of family services pursuant to a determination that the home of the relative shall be the permanent home of the juvenile. The Juvenile Code further provides that, if the court finds that the juvenile should remain in an out-of-home placement, either long-term or otherwise, the juvenile’s case shall be reviewed every six months. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-338(b) (Repl. 1993).  Ms. Nance’s contention is correct that, once the juvenile court took jurisdiction of this matter as a dependent-neglect case, the Juvenile Code provisions became applicable. That being so, the juvenile court was obliged to provide for periodic reviews under Ark. Code Ann. § § 9-27-337 and 9-27-338 (Repl. 1993). The record reflects the juvenile court did conduct hearings, but when it concluded its final hearing it merely found Mary Lila needed stability and her best interests would be served by transferring (continuing) custody with her father.2 The court further found that DHS no longer had to provide services. The juvenile court then erred when it dismissed the proceedings even though it further determined Ms. Nance has been in substantial compliance with the case plan developed by DHS.  Under the Juvenile Code, a juvenile court must follow the procedures and dispositions set out under § 9-27-318, although other permissible dispositions are available under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-335 (Repl. 1993) in situations where the court finds reasonable efforts to deliver family services have not been made —the juvenile court here made no such finding.3 See also Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-335 (Repl. 1993). Nowhere in the Code can we find authority for a juvenile court to dismiss dependent-neglect proceedings when the parties all comply with the case plan and reasonable efforts are being made by all concerned.4 Certainly, reunification, the cornerstone of the Juvenile Code, could never be achieved in these circumstances by dismissing the proceedings.  In sum, while we agree that at the time of the hearing, the record tended to support the juvenile court’s continuing the custody of Mary Lila with her father, the court was entirely wrong in dismissing this dependent-neglect case under the circumstances presented. If such dismissal is permitted here, then the review procedures and services provided by law to protect children and families become applicable and enforceable only when a juvenile court, in its own discretion, wishes to invoke those Code provisions. Therefore, we remand this matter to the juvenile court with directions to reinstate this case for periodic reviews required by Arkansas’s Juvenile Code provisions.  Section 9-27-338(a) states in full as follows: (a) Eighteen (18) months after the date the juvenile enters an out-of-home placement, or earlier if ordered by the court, the court shall hold a hearing in order to enter a new disposition in the case. At the hearing, based upon the facts of the case, the court shall enter one (1) of the following dispositions: (1) Return the juvenile to the parent, guardian, or custodian; (2) Authorize a plan for the termination of the parent-child relationship, guardianship, or custody; (3) Place the juvenile in long-term foster care; or (4) Allow the juvenile to continue in out-of-home placement for a specified period of time.   We note here that this case is not one where the juvenile court authorized a plan to “terminate” Ms. Nance’s parental relationship with or custody of Mary Lila. In fact, the court merely concluded that the return of custody of Mary Lila to Ms. Nance was contrary to Mary Lila’s welfare “at this time."   In fact, the court’s final order found DHS made reasonable efforts to provide services to the juvenile and family. We note also that § 9-27-335 does allow for dismissal of dependent-neglect proceedings if DHS fails to provide family services. Presumably in such an instance, the custody of the child is returned to the custodial parent.   At this point, wc would reiterate a point previously mentioned in our decision that the General Assembly has made it clear that a juvenile court’s custody order supersedes any existing court order and remains in effect until a subsequent custody order is entered by a court of competent jurisdiction. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-334(b) (Repl. 1993).