Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 684 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CA12-640 OPINION DELIVERED DECEMBER 5, 2012 MARLA GREEN APPEAL FROM THE SHARP APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CV2009-125] V. HONORABLE KEVIN KING, JUDGE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF AFFIRMED; MOTION TO HUMAN SERVICES and K.G., MINOR WITHDRAW GRANTED; MOTION CHILD TO FILE DELAYED PRO SE POINTS APPELLEES DENIED ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge In an order entered May 8, 2012, the Sharp County Circuit Court terminated the parental rights of appellant, Marla Green, to her daughter, K.G., whose date of birth is February 5, 2009. 1 Ms. Green’s appellate counsel has moved to withdraw from this case and has filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004), and Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Rule 6-9(i) (2012), asserting that there are no issues that would support a meritorious appeal. Pursuant to Rule 6-9, the court clerk has mailed to appellant a copy of her counsel’s motion and brief, informing her of her right to file pro se points for reversal. The pro se packet was returned 1 The order terminating parental rights includes the termination of the rights of the father, Samuel Mullins; however, he is not included in this appeal.
Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 684 unclaimed on October 11, 2012. However, appellant filed a motion to file delayed pro se points on November 1, 2012, explaining that she was now living at her mother’s address in Missouri. Neither the Arkansas Department of Human Services nor the attorney ad litem filed a responsive brief due to appellant’s failure to timely file pro se points. We hereby deny appellant’s motion to file belated pro se points, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm the trial court’s termination order. In compliance with Linker-Flores and Rule 6-9(i), counsel ordered the entire record and examined it for adverse rulings. Nine adverse rulings related to appellant were identified: the order terminating appellant’s parental rights and eight evidentiary rulings. Counsel then explained why a challenge to these adverse rulings would not support a meritorious argument for reversal. After carefully examining the record and the no-merit brief, we hold that appellant’s counsel has complied with the requirements for no-merit parental-termination appeals and that the appeal is wholly without merit. Accordingly, by memorandum opinion we affirm the termination of appellant’s parental rights to K.G. In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985); Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 5-2(e) (2012). We also grant her counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of appellant. Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted; motion to file delayed pro se points denied. VAUGHT, C.J., and MARTIN, J., agree. Janet Lawrence, for appellant. No response. 2
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.