{ "id": 1902461, "name": "ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES v. John HEATH", "name_abbreviation": "Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Heath", "decision_date": "1991-11-04", "docket_number": "91-98", "first_page": "147", "last_page": "149", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "307 Ark. 147" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "817 S.W.2d 885" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "298 Ark. 421", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1889943 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/298/0421-01" ] }, { "cite": "305 Ark. 77", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1916803 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/305/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "462 U.S. 1111", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6220992, 6222337, 6222093, 6221813, 6221533, 6221278 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/462/1111-01", "/us/462/1111-06", "/us/462/1111-05", "/us/462/1111-04", "/us/462/1111-03", "/us/462/1111-02" ] }, { "cite": "277 Ark. 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1750239 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/277/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-111-106", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 25-15-212", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 12-12-516", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)(1)(A)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 314, "char_count": 4376, "ocr_confidence": 0.858, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.4060109877770932e-07, "percentile": 0.6456799218796154 }, "sha256": "06a94e52eb9b6e8af2fa3a9209d990d1a2bce2e3f7115f817a3d607afe217dc8", "simhash": "1:613edbc0dd2d5df0", "word_count": 683 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:45:32.876763+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Hays, J., concurring.", "Brown, J., not participating." ], "parties": [ "ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES v. John HEATH" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Donald L. Corbin, Justice.\nThe Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) appeals an order of the Crittenden County Circuit Court to expunge appellee John Heath\u2019s name from the Child Abuse and Neglect Central Registry. On December 10,1990, the circuit court ordered expunction subsequent to the court\u2019s reversal of the department\u2019s determination that appellant had committed child abuse. DHS does not appeal the reversal.\nArk. Code Ann. \u00a7 12-12-516(b)(1)(A) (Supp. 1989) sets out the applicable law for expunction of child abuse reports:\n(b)(1)(A) Records of all reports of abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, or exploitation shall be retained by the Child Abuse and Neglect Central Registry in accordance with the terms of this subchapter and it shall be sealed when the youngest minor victim-subject of the report reaches the age of twenty-one (21) years.\n(i) Once sealed, the records shall not otherwise be available unless the department, upon notice to the subject of the report, gives approval for an appropriate reason.\n(ii) Reports which were determined to be unfounded shall be expunged after three (3) years. [Emphasis supplied.]\nAppellant DHS relied on the statute\u2019s expungement provision in making a motion for clarification and amendment of the circuit court\u2019s order. In its motion, DHS argued that section 12-12-516(b)(1)(A) prohibits expungement prior to the expiration of a three year period, and requested the circuit court to modify its order to conform with the department\u2019s-, interpretation of the statutory expungement provision.\nThe circuit court responded to appellant\u2019s motion by issuing an order directing DHS to \u201cimmediately carry out the Order of the Court of December 10, 1990 and immediately expunge Mr. Heath\u2019s name from any Central Regis try [.]\u201d The order further declared section 12-12-516(b)(1)(A) unconstitutional on grounds that the expungement provision violated appellee\u2019s due process rights, and unconstitutionally infringed on the court\u2019s inherent power to issue orders assuring compliance with its rulings.\nAppellant DHS asserts two grounds for reversal of the trial court\u2019s order. First, DHS argues that the trial court erred in ordering the agency to violate the statutory recording requirements. Second, DHS argues that the trial court\u2019s expunction order exceeded the scope of judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 25-15-212 (1987). Given the circuit court\u2019s stated grounds for declaring section 12-12-516(b)(1) (A) unconstitutional, we believe both arguments implicate constitutional issues. In fact, appellee relies solely on constitutional arguments in urging this court to uphold the expungement order.\nWe do not address the merits of appellant\u2019s argument because the Attorney General was not notified of the constitutional attack on the expungement provision. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-111-106(b) (1987) requires that \u201c[i]n any proceeding\u201d in which a statute is alleged to be unconstitutional, \u201cthe Attorney General of the state shall also be served with a copy of the proceeding and be entitled to be heard.\u201d In the instant case, the constitutionality of section 12-12-516 was not implicated until the circuit court relied on constitutional grounds in ordering appellant DHS to comply with the expungement order. The purpose of the notice requirement is to prevent an ordinance or statute from being declared unconstitutional in a proceeding which might not be a fully adversary and complete adjudication. City of Little Rock v. Cash, 277 Ark. 494, 644 S.W.2d 229 (1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1111 (1983). Since the constitutional arguments were not fully developed before the trial court, a decision on the merits would circumvent the purpose of the notice requirement. See Reagan v. City of Piggott, 305 Ark. 77, 805 S.W.2d 636 (1991). Olmstead v. Logan, 298 Ark. 421, 768 S.W.2d 26 (1989). Consequently, we reverse and remand to allow \u2022conformance with the requirements of section 16-111-106(b).\nHays, J., concurring.\nBrown, J., not participating.", "type": "majority", "author": "Donald L. Corbin, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Department of Human Services, by: Bruce P. Hurlbut, Asst. Chief Counsel, for appellant.", "Rose Law Firm, A Professional Association, by: Webster L. HubbelV, and Rieves & Mayton by: Elton A. Rieves, III, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES v. John HEATH\n91-98\n817 S.W.2d 885\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered November 4, 1991\nDepartment of Human Services, by: Bruce P. Hurlbut, Asst. Chief Counsel, for appellant.\nRose Law Firm, A Professional Association, by: Webster L. HubbelV, and Rieves & Mayton by: Elton A. Rieves, III, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0147-01", "first_page_order": 173, "last_page_order": 175 }