Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 108 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CA09-858 NATASHA BLAKES Opinion Delivered 3 FEBRUARY 2010 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. JV 2006-123] ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF THE HONORABLE RALPH HUMAN SERVICES and WILSON, JR., JUDGE MINOR CHILD APPELLEES MOTION DENIED; REBRIEFING ORDERED D. P. MARSHALL JR., Judge The circuit court terminated Natasha Blakes’s parental rights to J.B., her young daughter. J.B. was born to a fifteen-year-old Blakes, then in the custody of the Division of Youth Services. Blakes remained in foster care until she reached age eighteen. Her lawyer has moved to withdraw 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), asserting that there are no issues of arguable merit that would support an appeal. As required by Rule 6-9, the Clerk of the Supreme Court mailed Blakes a copy of the motion and no-merit brief, along with notice that she could file points arguing the merits. The green card was
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 108 returned. Despite the package having been sent restricted delivery, the card appears to be signed by someone other than Blakes. She filed no pro se points for reversal. Her lawyer’s brief addresses two adverse rulings from the termination hearing and the ultimate termination decision but omits two other adverse rulings. At the termination hearing, the circuit court sustained the attorney ad litem’s objection to Blakes’s counsel’s cross-examination of the case worker about her experience handling foster children with aggressive behavior. During Blakes’s case-in-chief, her attorney informed the court that, although she had subpoenaed two “fairly important” witnesses to testify about Blakes’s progress, they were not present. These witnesses had appeared earlier in the day, but left before Blakes’s case was called late in the afternoon. The court decided to finish the hearing that day without those witnesses. We may affirm a termination-of-parental-rights case despite unaddressed adverse rulings in the no-merit brief, e.g., Sartin v. State, 2010 Ark . 16, 362 S.W.3d 877, but only when the omitted adverse rulings are clearly without merit. Ibid. The court’s decision to go forward without Blakes’s witnesses cannot be categorized as “clearly not meritorious.” Sartin, 2010 Ark. 16, at 4–5, 362 S.W.3d at 880. Blakes’s lawyer must address that ruling. Her lawyer should also brief the court’s limitation on Blakes’s cross-examination. This ruling is probably not a meritorious ground for appeal, but 2
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 108 we read Sartin as applying to cases where only all unaddressed adverse rulings are clearly unmeritorious. In keeping with the spirit of Rule 6-9(i) and Sartin, prudence favors rebriefing of all known deficiencies. Counsel should turn square corners in these cases. E.g., Elkins v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 536, at 2, 336 S.W.3d 883, 883. Motion denied; rebriefing ordered. G LADWIN AND BAKER, JJ., agree. 3
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.