{
  "id": 3690222,
  "name": "David WHITHAM v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT of HUMAN SERVICES",
  "name_abbreviation": "Whitham v. Arkansas Department of Human Services",
  "decision_date": "2008-09-04",
  "docket_number": "08-752",
  "first_page": "161",
  "last_page": "162",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "374 Ark. 161"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "286 S.W.3d 685"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "360 Ark. 259",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        5460644
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/360/0259-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "205 S.W.3d 795",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5683773,
        5683583
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/361/0227-01",
        "/ark/361/0237-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "361 Ark. 227",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        5683773
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/361/0227-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "356 Ark. 106",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        5369074
      ],
      "weight": 8,
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "116"
        },
        {
          "page": "891"
        },
        {
          "page": "891",
          "parenthetical": "footnote omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/356/0106-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 172,
    "char_count": 2275,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.802,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1071228477027039
    },
    "sha256": "0e9b4736d6ca3ad6297823d783d824b928d1d604438f4fcfb88b189edbc99d78",
    "simhash": "1:396298e70ce4ad33",
    "word_count": 383
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:36:09.980592+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "David WHITHAM v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT of HUMAN SERVICES"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAppellant David Whitham, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk. His attorney, Deborah Sailings, states in the motion that the record was tendered late due to an error on her part.\nThis court clarified its treatment of motions for rule on clerk and motions for belated appeals in McDonald v. State, 356 Ark. 106, 146 S.W.3d 883 (2004). There we said that there are only two possible reasons for an appeal not being timely perfected: either the party or attorney filing the appeal is at fault, or, there is \u201cgood reason.\u201d 356 Ark. at 116, 146 S.W.3d at 891. We explained:\nWhere an appeal is not timely perfected, either the party or attorney filing the appeal is at fault, or there is good reason that the appeal was not timely perfected. The party or attorney filing the appeal is therefore faced with two options. First, where the party or attorney filing the appeal is at fault, fault should be admitted by affidavit filed with the motion or in the motion itself. There is no advantage in declining to admit fault where fault exists. Second, where the party or attorney believes that there is good reason the appeal was not perfected, the case for good reason can be made in the motion, and this court will decide whether good reason is present.\nId., 146 S.W.3d at 891 (footnote omitted). While this court no longer requires an affidavit admitting fault before we will consider the motion, an attorney should candidly admit fault where he has erred and is responsible for the failure to perfect the appeal. See id.\nIn accordance with McDonald v. State, supra, Ms. Sailings has candidly admitted fault. We have previously afforded indigent parents appealing termination of parental rights similar protections as those provided indigent criminal defendants. Childers v. Ark. Dep\u2019t of Human Servs., 361 Ark. 227, 205 S.W.3d 795 (2005); Bogachoff v. Ark. Dep\u2019t of Human Servs., 360 Ark. 259, 200 S.W.3d 884 (2005). The motion is, therefore, granted. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.\nMotion granted.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Deborah Sailings, for appellant.",
      "No response."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "David WHITHAM v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT of HUMAN SERVICES\n08-752\n286 S.W.3d 685\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 4, 2008\nDeborah Sailings, for appellant.\nNo response."
  },
  "file_name": "0161-01",
  "first_page_order": 185,
  "last_page_order": 186
}