{ "id": 6140083, "name": "Howell RILEY & Christie Riley v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES", "name_abbreviation": "Riley v. Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services", "decision_date": "2007-03-21", "docket_number": "CA 06-893", "first_page": "235", "last_page": "237", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "98 Ark. App. 235" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "253 S.W.3d 928" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "340 Ark. 615", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1365256 ], "weight": 6, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "621" }, { "page": "208" }, { "page": "208" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/340/0615-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-27-341", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 254, "char_count": 3571, "ocr_confidence": 0.754, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.17491541012622744 }, "sha256": "d105a093e8f2c21e5a30c96a3c6bb5a8e3cf3f2ae5a2dcc661e131526c3ee4e2", "simhash": "1:afba630a7620d795", "word_count": 603 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:09:49.949226+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Heffley and Miller, JJ., agree." ], "parties": [ "Howell RILEY & Christie Riley v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Larry D. Vaught, Judge.\nAppellant Howell Riley\u2019s parental rights to his minor son, S.H., were terminated on May 2, 2006. Riley\u2019s sole argument on appeal is that the termination was improper because S. H. was not \u201cout of the home\u201d for more than twelve months as required by Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-27-341 (Repl. 2002).\nThe facts of this case are not in dispute. On April 18, 2005, S.H. was placed in foster care. Less than one year later, on April 6, 2006, a hearing relating to the Arkansas Department of Health and Human Service\u2019s petition to terminate Riley\u2019s parental rights was conducted. At the hearing, Elizabeth Leakey, a family-service worker with the DHHS, admitted that S.H. had not been out of the home for the requisite twelve months. Based on this deficiency, Riley moved to dismiss the termination petition. Specifically, he stated that the DHHS petition was based \u201ca lot on, or in part that the child had been out of the home for in excess of [twelve] months. That\u2019s not true.\u201d\nIn its letter order terminating Riley\u2019s parental rights, the trial court acknowledged the fact that at the time of the hearing S.H. \u201chad not been in care quite twelve months.\u201d However, the trial court found that despite this DHHS had \u201cshown by clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights of Mr. Riley should be terminated.\u201d It is from this finding that Riley now appeals.\nAlthough this issue has never been directly addressed by either our court or the supreme court, the holding in Ullom v. Ark. Dep\u2019t of Human Servs., 340 Ark. 615, 12 S.W.3d 204 (2000), provides illuminating dictum relating to this precise issue. In Ullom, the supreme court refused to address an argument that \u201ctermination was not proper because [the child] was not \u2018out of the home\u2019 for more than twelve months\u201d because the issue was not presented at trial. See Ullom, 340 Ark. at 621, 12 S.W.3d at 208. However, the court went on to state that \u201cthe child had clearly been out of the home for more than twelve months at the time the termination order was entered.\u201d Id., 12 S.W.3d at 208. This language is instructive as we consider the proper way to measure the twelve-month period outlined in Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 9-27-341. According to our supreme court\u2019s interpretation of this temporal-statutory mandate, the clock commences on the date the child is removed from the home and does not stop until the termination order is entered.\nTherefore, because S.H. was placed in foster care on April 18, 2005, and the termination order was not entered until May 3, 2006, he had been out of Riley\u2019s custody for over one year as required by the statute. In accord with the reasoning espoused in Ullom, any error resulting from DHHS\u2019s premature filing of the termination petition was cured once the twelve-month time threshold was satisfied. Moreover, in its order, the trial found that S.H. had been subjected to aggravated circumstance based on the court\u2019s doubt that \u201creunification could ever be accomplished\u201d \u201cwithin a reasonable time from the child\u2019s development.\u201d Riley does not contest this finding by the trial court, which is a separate and sufficient ground to support the termination. For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nHeffley and Miller, JJ., agree.", "type": "majority", "author": "Larry D. Vaught, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "David L. Moore, P.A., by: David L. Moore, for appellant.", "Gray Allen Turner, for appellee Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Howell RILEY & Christie Riley v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES\nCA 06-893\n253 S.W.3d 928\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 21, 2007\nDavid L. Moore, P.A., by: David L. Moore, for appellant.\nGray Allen Turner, for appellee Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services." }, "file_name": "0235-01", "first_page_order": 265, "last_page_order": 267 }