{
  "id": 6138309,
  "name": "IN RE ADOPTION of H.L.M., Wade L. McNew",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Adoption of H.L.M.",
  "decision_date": "2007-05-23",
  "docket_number": "CA 07-11",
  "first_page": "115",
  "last_page": "118",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "99 Ark. App. 115"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "257 S.W.3d 587"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "353 Ark. 730",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1155530
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/353/0730-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "314 Ark. 92",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1912807
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/314/0092-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 Ark. 573",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        50422
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/328/0573-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 412,
    "char_count": 7360,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.753,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39388396775256007
    },
    "sha256": "1db84050fc744014aedb590a5421930234fc524ea6b6dcd4e1d2404008e9fffc",
    "simhash": "1:3d59944e106efd46",
    "word_count": 1192
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:09:21.655097+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Marshall and Vaught, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN RE ADOPTION of H.L.M., Wade L. McNew"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Sarah Heffley, Judge.\nAppellant Wade L. McNew appeals from an order dismissing without prejudice his petition as a stepparent to adopt his wife\u2019s adoptive child. For reversal, he contends that the trial court erred in ruling that, before the adoption could go forward, he was required to either obtain the consent of the child\u2019s biological father, or produce an order demonstrating that the biological father\u2019s parental rights had been terminated. We agree that the trial court\u2019s ruling was in error and thus reverse and remand.\nBy a petition and an amended petition, filed respectively on July 26 and August 28 of2006, appellant sought to adopt his wife\u2019s child. The amended petition and attached exhibits disclose that appellant married his wife Tammy in August of2005. Prior to their marriage, Tammy, as a single woman, had adopted the child in question. Both the interlocutory decree of adoption, dated August 24, 2005, and the final decree of adoption, entered on January 19, 2006, state that the child\u2019s biological mother and biological father had executed their consent to Tammy\u2019s adoption of their daughter.\nA hearing was held on appellant\u2019s amended petition on September 28, 2006. During this hearing, the trial court inspected the previous interlocutory and final decrees of adoption, whereby Tammy had adopted the child, and noted that, although the biological father had consented to the adoption, neither decree specifically terminated the biological father\u2019s parental rights. The court thus required appellant to either obtain the biological father\u2019s consent to the present adoption, or an order from the court that granted Tammy\u2019s adoption stating that the biological father\u2019s rights had been terminated in the previous proceeding.\nOn September 28, after the hearing, appellant filed a motion to transfer the amended petition to the Seventeenth Division of the Pulaski County Circuit Court where the prior adoption had been heard. The trial court denied the motion to transfer that same day.\nOn October 2, 2006, appellant\u2019s counsel sent a proposed order of dismissal to the trial court for its signature. When the trial court did not act on the proposed order, appellant\u2019s counsel wrote to the court again on October 16 to inquire about the order, stating \u201c[i]f the order is not to your satisfaction, please revise and sign for appeal purposes.\u201d The trial court entered its own order dismissing without prejudice appellant\u2019s amended petition on October 31, 2006. In it, the court reiterated its position that it was necessary for appellant to obtain the consent of the biological father or an order reflecting the termination of his parental rights. The basis for the trial court\u2019s ruling was stated as follows:\nThe Court explained to Petitioner\u2019s attorney [at the hearing] that the wording of the biological father\u2019s consent filed in the previous adoption matter was identical to the wording ofTammy Lanee NcNew\u2019s consent filed in this proceeding. It did not appear that the biological father authorized a termination of his parental rights when he consented to a female adopting his daughter. ... To explain its reasoning, the Court noted that Tammy Lanee McNew\u2019s identical consent to adoption for Petitioner to adopt her child would not terminate her parental rights in this matter. Accordingly, the biological father\u2019s consent to adoption would not operate to terminate his parental rights in the previous adoption proceeding, either. However, if the Pulaski County Circuit Court, Seventeenth Division, in the previous adoption case entered an order that the biological father\u2019s rights were terminated in that case then this Court would accept that Court\u2019s finding regarding the termination.\nOn November 6, 2006, appellant filed a motion to set aside the order of dismissal, taking issue with certain statements made by the trial court in its dismissal order. The motion to set aside was not acted upon in thirty days and was thus deemed denied on December 6, 2006. Ark. R. App. P. \u2014 Civil 4(b)(1). This timely appeal followed.\nAppellant contends that the trial court erred by requiring him to acquire the consent of the child\u2019s biological father or an order showing the termination of his parental rights before he, as a stepparent, could adopt his wife\u2019s child. There is decided merit in this argument. Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-9-204(2) (Repl. 2002) authorizes an unmarried adult, such as appellant\u2019s wife Tammy, to adopt a child. Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-9-215 (Supp. 2005) addresses the effect of a decree of adoption and provides in relevant part that\n(a) A final decree of adoption and an interlocutory decree of adoption which has become final, whether issued by a court of this state or of any other place, have the following effect as to matters within the jurisdiction or before a court of this state:\n(1) Except with respect to a spouse of the petitioner and relatives of the spouse, to relieve the biological parents of the adopted individual of all parental rights and responsibilities, and to terminate all legal relationships between the adopted individual and his or her biological relatives, including his or her biological parents, so that the adopted individual thereafter is a stranger to his or her former relatives for all purposes.\n(Emphasis added.)\nThe supreme court has interpreted this statute as an expression of public policy favoring a complete severance of the relationship between the adopted child and his or her biological family in order to further the best interest of the child. Vice v. Andrews, 328 Ark. 573, 945 S.W.2d 914 (1997); Suster v. Arkansas Dep\u2019t of Human Servs., 314 Ark. 92, 858 S.W.2d 122 (1993). Based on these authorities, appellant was not required to obtain the consent of the child\u2019s biological father, nor was it necessary for there to be an order specifically terminating his parental rights. By operation of law, the former adoption decree forever severed and held for naught the biological father\u2019s rights, responsibilities, and legal relationship with the child. In terms of severing parental rights, the statute does provide that the parental rights of \u201ca spouse of a petitioner,\u201d like Tammy, are not severed upon a stepparent adoption; however, the statute carves out no exception for a biological parent where an adoption is granted to an unmarried person. The trial court clearly erred in ruling otherwise. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nIn closing, we note that at the end of the record, after the clerk\u2019s certificate, there appears a letter written by the trial court to appellant\u2019s counsel on December 29, 2006, that purports to address appellant\u2019s motion t\u00f3 set aside the order of dismissal. We do not approve of this belated attempt to address the motion, and we have not considered this letter in reaching our decision. The letter is not file-marked and thus was not entered of record. We will not consider matters that are outside the record to determine issues on appeal. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Tucker, 353 Ark. 730, 120 S.W.3d 61 (2003).\nReversed and remanded.\nMarshall and Vaught, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Sarah Heffley, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Abies Law Firm, P.A., by: Ashley E. Caudle and Lisa Jones-Abies, for appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN RE ADOPTION of H.L.M., Wade L. McNew\nCA 07-11\n257 S.W.3d 587\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 23, 2007\nAbies Law Firm, P.A., by: Ashley E. Caudle and Lisa Jones-Abies, for appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0115-01",
  "first_page_order": 145,
  "last_page_order": 148
}