Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 368 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-13-1127 JENNIFER HOLT and JOEL HOLT APPELLANTS V. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES and MINOR CHILD APPELLEES RHONDA K. WOOD, Judge The circuit court terminated Jennifer and Joel Holt’s parental rights to their child, B.H. The Holts’ counsel filed a no-merit brief and motion to withdraw. No pro se points have been filed. We affirm the court’s termination order and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. The Department of Human Services parental rights based on two statutory circumstances. 1 The petition also alleged that termination was in B.H.’s best interest. After 1 Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii), (ix) (Supp. 2013). Opinion Delivered June 4, 2014 APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT [NO. JV-2010-55] HONORABLE MARK HEWETT, JUDGE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED filed a petition to terminate the Holts’ grounds: “other factors” and aggravated
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 368 a termination hearing, the court terminated the Holts’ parental rights after finding multiple statutory grounds and agreeing with DHS that termination was in B.H.’s best interest. If appellate counsel thinks that an appeal from a termination-of-parental-rights order is meritless, he or she may file a no-merit brief. Linker-Flores v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004); Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(i) (2013). The brief must list all adverse rulings and explain why none provide a meritorious ground for reversal. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(i)(1)(A). Here, there were eight adverse rulings: the termination order and seven evidence-based objections. Counsel has adequately explained why none provide a meritorious ground to appeal. Counsel fully complied with our rules. We grant the motion to withdraw and affirm the termination order by memorandum opinion. See In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985). Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted. P ITTMAN and HIXSON, JJ., agree. Dusti Standridge, for appellants. 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.