Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 326 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CA09-569 BETHANY MYERS, Opinion Delivered APRIL 14, 2010 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE MILLER V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, [NO. JV-2008-323-1] ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HONORABLE JOE E. GRIFFIN, HUMAN SERVICES, JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED KAREN R. BAKER, Judge Bethany Myers and her husband, Jim, are the parents of R.M., N.M.1, M.M., J.M., E.M., and N.M.2. She appeals from the circuit court’s order adjudicating her children dependent-neglected after DHS took them into custody from the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries Compound in Fouke, Arkansas, in November 2008. In the same proceeding, the circuit court also adjudicated the children of Don Thorne, Albert and Miriam Krantz, and Carlos and Sophia Parrish dependent-neglected. There was testimony at the adjudication hearing that Myers’s daughters N.M.1 and M.M. lived in Alamo’s home, and that, at the time of the hearing, Jim was in hiding with N.M.1, M.M., and J.M. The circuit court sent Myers, who did not contest the allegations at the hearing, to jail for contempt until Jim produced the children.
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 326 All of the parents make the same arguments on appeal: that the evidence does not sup port the trial court’s findings of dependency-neglect, and that the court violated their rights to the free exercise of their religion by ordering them to obtain and maintain housing and employment sep arate and apart from the ministry. In a separate opinion, we affirmed the adjudication order involving Don Thorne’s children. Thorne v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 317, 374 S.W.3d 912. For the same reasons expressed in that opinion, we affirm the part of the circuit court’s order finding the Myers child ren dependent-neglected. But, unlike the other parents, Myers did not raise the free-exercise issue b elow. And she agreed to the case plan in open court. Thus, we cannot reach her constitutional argument on appeal. Broderick v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 771, at 8, 358 S.W.3d 909, 914. Affirmed. G RUBER and MARSHALL, JJ., agree. -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.