{
  "id": 6142017,
  "name": "Misty RHINE v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT of HUMAN SERVICES",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rhine v. Arkansas Department of Human Services",
  "decision_date": "2008-02-27",
  "docket_number": "CA 06-137",
  "first_page": "370",
  "last_page": "374",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "101 Ark. App. 370"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "278 S.W.3d 118"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "300 Ark. 390",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1886867
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "upholding a finding that it was in the child's best interest to grant adoption to parents who had previously adopted child's two siblings"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "upholding a finding that it was in the child's best interest to grant adoption to parents who had previously adopted child's two siblings"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/300/0390-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 Ark. App. 57",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6137162
      ],
      "weight": 6,
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "68"
        },
        {
          "page": "286"
        },
        {
          "page": "69"
        },
        {
          "page": "287"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/98/0057-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 406,
    "char_count": 6482,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.788,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7331491258760516e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7058264786865952
    },
    "sha256": "de01336c5328fcb7f417dcf4d1099faeed57d53c3c8bd35f6cff247500d75781",
    "simhash": "1:ed30c67840d31205",
    "word_count": 1124
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:59:08.797430+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Bird and Marshall, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Misty RHINE v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT of HUMAN SERVICES"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Josehpine Linker Hart, Judge.\nMisty Rhine\u2019s parental rights to her son A.I. were terminated by a Washington County Circuit Court order entered on October 27, 2005. In this appeal, she asserts that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying a continuance to allow her to execute a consent and waiver so that her mother could adopt A.I. We agree that, under the circumstances of this case, such a refusal amounted to an abuse of discretion. Therefore, we reverse and remand.\nThe facts leading to the termination of Rhine\u2019s parental rights are set forth in our opinion in Ivers v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 98 Ark. App. 57, 250 S.W.3d 279 (2007), where we addressed the termination of the parental rights ofboth of A.i.\u2019s parents.\nAt the outset of the termination hearing, Rhine sought a continuance so that she could execute a consent so that her mother, Helen King, could adopt A.I. The following colloquy took place.\nThe Court: So, we\u2019re here today on the [A.I.] Case set for a Dependent-Neglect Termination. Call your first, Ms. Mcllroy.\nMs. Segers [attorney for Rhine]: Your Honor,may I ask for everyone to approach?\nThe Court: Yes.\nMs. Segers: Your Honor, my client has informed me this morning that she is willing to sign a consent of adoption, and I did not have one drawn up because I did not know that. And I understand Mr. Ivers is, too. They would like to have the baby placed with Ms. King, the grandmother who has the step-child \u2014 I mean the \u2014\nMr. Casto [attorney for Ivers]: Sibling.\nMs. Segers: \u2014 the sibling. And I believe Ms. King is in agreement with that, so if we \u2014 I just thought I would bring it to the Court\u2019s attention that they will sign a consent, and it could occur ten days from now if we can get the consent, and the termination would be automatic at that point in time and have the baby, if possible, placed with its sibling with Ms. King, who is in agreement.\nThe Court: All right, so you\u2019re asking for a continuance, then, today, on the Termination Hearing?\nMs. Segers: Yes.\nThe Court: Okay, and, Ms. Warren, do you have any objection?\nMs. Warren [attorney ad litem]: I think we need to have the Termination by October 12th unless \u2014 the Petition, I believe, was filed on July 12th.\nThe Court: Okay, Ms. McIlroy?\nMs. McIlroy [attorney for DHS]: As long as we can do it within that time frame.\nThe Court: Well, you\u2019re going to be out for training.\nMs. McIlroy: I know. Not until the 19th.\nThe Court: So, I think we\u2019re just going to press on today because \u2014 did you say the 17th is when?\nMs. McIlroy: The 12th.\nMr Casto: 12th, Your Honor.\nMs. Warren: July 12th.\nThe Court: You\u2019re not going to be here next week, is that correct?\nMs. McIlroy: I\u2019ll be on vacation.\nThe Court: Right.\nMs. McIlroy: Susan will be here, yeah.\nThe Court: No Melinda McIlroy all week, and it\u2019s a Termination, so I\u2019m not going to put that on Ms. Hall. And then the next week \u2014\nMs. Warren: We\u2019re at October 12th.We can go one day past for as \u2014\nThe Court: Well, it\u2019s not any better than today, so we\u2019re going to just press on today. I deny the \u2014\nMs. McIlroy: You can go anytime for good cause.\nMs. Warren: That\u2019s true.\nThe Court: We\u2019re going to press on today. I\u2019ll deny the motion for a continuance. Call your first, Ms. McIlroy.\nArkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-341 (d) requires that termination hearings shall be completed within ninety days of the date of the petition unless continued for good cause. In addressing the continuance, the court did not consider the effect a continuance would have on obtaining permanency for A.I., who was in his third foster home. A continuance to allow for the adoption of A.I. by King would have accomplished permanency for A.I. quicker than could be available if the court and DHS proceeded with an ordinary termination case because the rights of the father would still have had to be terminated. According to the colloquy, the father was willing to consent to the adoption. Further, the adoption would have allowed A.I. to be placed with his sibling whom King has already adopted, a factor sanctioned by our supreme court. See In re Adoption of Perkins/Pollnow, 300 Ark. 390, 779 S.W.2d 531 (1989) (upholding a finding that it was in the child\u2019s best interest to grant adoption to parents who had previously adopted child\u2019s two siblings). In Ivers, we noted our disagreement with the idea that the termination of parental rights would lead to greater stability for A.I., especially where placement with King was the primary option under consideration at that time. 98 Ark. App. at 68, 250 S.W.3d at 286. We also noted that this would be a less extreme remedy than would the termination of Rhine\u2019s parental rights. Id. at 69, 250 S.W.3d at 287.\nThe consideration of factors such as the attorney for DHS being on vacation and that there was an upcoming training event created a false dilemma because the circuit court clearly had the discretion to go beyond the ninety-day limit in section 9-27-341 (d) upon a finding of good cause. It cannot be said that providing permanency for A.I. in a more timely manner and the keeping of the siblings together is not good cause for exceeding the ninety-day period in section 9-27-341 (d) by only a few days at most. Although concern with accommodating the attorney for DHS and her vacation are important, those considerations pale in comparison to the serious consequences at stake for Rhine and A.I. Further, the court did not exercise its discretion under the statute, even after the attorney ad litem and DHS attorney pointed it out to the court. Under these circumstances, we hold that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Rhine\u2019s motion for a continuance. We reverse and remand for further orders consistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nBird and Marshall, JJ., agree.\nIn Ivers, we denied Rhine\u2019s counsel\u2019s motion to withdraw and ordered rebriefing on the merits. On September 5,2007, we again denied Rhine\u2019s counsel\u2019s motion to withdraw and again ordered rebriefing on the merits. Rhine v. Arkansas Dep\u2019t of Human Servs., No. CA06-137 (Ark. App. Sept. 5, 2007). Counsel has now filed a brief complying with our earlier orders.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Josehpine Linker Hart, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Glen Hoggard, for appellant.",
      "Gray Allen Turner, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.",
      "Diane Warren, attorney ad litem, for the minor child."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Misty RHINE v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT of HUMAN SERVICES\nCA 06-137\n278 S.W.3d 118\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 27, 2008\n[Rehearing denied March 19, 2008.]\nGlen Hoggard, for appellant.\nGray Allen Turner, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.\nDiane Warren, attorney ad litem, for the minor child."
  },
  "file_name": "0370-01",
  "first_page_order": 400,
  "last_page_order": 404
}