Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-314 (2026)
Emergency orders
-
- In a case in which there is probable cause to believe that immediate emergency custody is necessary to protect the health or physical well-being of the juvenile from immediate danger or to prevent the juvenile's removal from the state, the circuit court shall issue an ex parte order for emergency custody to remove the juvenile from the custody of the parent, guardian, or custodian and shall determine the appropriate plan for placement of the juvenile.
-
- In a case in which there is probable cause to believe that an emergency order is necessary to protect the health or physical well-being of the juvenile from immediate danger, the court shall issue an ex parte order to provide specific appropriate safeguards for the protection of the juvenile.
-
Specific appropriate safeguards shall include without limitation the authority of the circuit court to restrict a legal custodian from:
- Having any contact with the juvenile; or
-
Removing a juvenile from a placement if the:
- Legal custodian placed or allowed the juvenile to remain in that home for more than six (6) months; and
- Department of Human Services has no immediate health or physical well-being concerns with the placement.
- In a case in which there is probable cause to believe that a juvenile is a dependent juvenile as defined in this subchapter, the court shall issue an ex parte order for emergency custody placing custody of the dependent juvenile with the department.
-
The emergency order shall include:
- Notice to all defendants and respondents named in the petition of the right to a hearing and that a hearing will be held within five (5) business days of the issuance of the ex parte order;
- Notice of a defendant's or respondent's right to be represented by counsel;
-
- Notice of a defendant's or respondent's right to obtain appointed counsel, if eligible, and the procedure for obtaining appointed counsel.
-
A court shall:
- Appoint counsel for the parent or custodian from whom legal custody was removed in the ex parte emergency order; and
- Determine eligibility at the probable cause hearing; and
- The address and telephone number of the circuit court and the date and time of the probable cause hearing, if known.
-
-
Immediate notice of the emergency order shall be given by the petitioner or by the circuit court to the:
- Custodial parent, noncustodial parent, guardian, or custodian of the juvenile; and
- Attorney ad litem who represents the juvenile respondent.
- The petitioner shall provide copies of any petition, affidavit, or other pleading filed with or provided to the court in conjunction with the emergency order to the provisionally appointed parent counsel under § 9-27-316(h)(6)(B) before the probable cause hearing.
- All defendants shall be served with the emergency order according to Rule 4 or Rule 5 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure or as otherwise provided by the court.
-
Immediate notice of the emergency order shall be given by the petitioner or by the circuit court to the:
History. Acts 1989, No. 273, § 13; 1995, No. 533, § 4; 1999, No. 1340, § 32; 2005, No. 1990, § 6; 2007, No. 587, § 11; 2009, No. 758, § 13; 2011, No. 792, § 8; 2011, No. 1175, § 3; 2015, No. 1024, § 3; 2017, No. 861, § 1.
Amendments. The 2005 amendment added (a)(3); substituted “in which” for “where” in (a)(1) and (a)(2); and added “to provide specific … where the juvenile resides” in (a)(2).
The 2007 amendment added (a)(2)(C) and made related changes.
The 2009 amendment substituted “§ 12-18-103(17)” for “§ 12-12-503(16)” in the introductory language of (a)(2).
The 2011 amendment by No. 792 rewrote (a)(2)(A); and added (a)(2)(B).
The 2011 amendment by No. 1175 substituted “all defendants and respondents named in the petition” for “the juvenile's parents, custodian, or guardian” in (b)(1); added the (b)(3)(A) designation and (b)(3)(B) and substituted “eligible” for “indigent” in (b)(3)(A); substituted “Notice of their right” for “Their right” in (b)(2) and (b)(3)(A); and, in (b)(4), substituted “address” for “location” and “date and time of the probable cause hearing, if known” for “procedure for obtaining a hearing”.
The 2015 amendment deleted “the parents, guardians, or custodian and the juvenile” following “court to” in the introductory language of (c)(1); inserted (c)(1)(A) and (B); and, in (c)(2) [now (c)(3)], inserted “with the emergency order” and inserted “Rule 4 or 5 of”.
The 2017 amendment inserted “circuit” preceding “court” in (a)(2)(B), (b)(4), and (c)(1); substituted “juvenile” for “child” throughout (a)(2)(B); substituted “a defendant’s or respondent’s” for “their” in (b)(2) and (b)(3)(A); redesignated part of (b)(3)(B) as (b)(3)(B)(i) and (ii); substituted “shall” for “may” in the introductory language of (b)(3)(B); inserted present (c)(2); redesignated former (c)(2) as (c)(3); and made stylistic changes.
Research References
U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.
Landreneau, Evidence — Former Testimony Exception to the Hearsay Rule Poses Unexpected Hazards to Parents Who Testify in Juvenile Court Probable Cause Hearings (Hamblen v. State), 18 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 181.
Case Notes
Discharge from Hospital.
Discharge of infant from hospital did not violate any affirmative duty under former statute. Harpole v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 820 F.2d 923 (8th Cir. 1987) (decision under prior law).
Immunity of Social Workers.
All actions taken by a social worker are not entitled to absolute immunity. If a social worker unilaterally attempts to influence the parent-child relationship, these actions would fall outside the protected prosecutorial role; in such a case, a lawsuit could proceed against the social worker, and the social worker would only be entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity. Fogle v. Benton County SCAN, 665 F. Supp. 729 (W.D. Ark. 1987) (decision under prior law).
Actions of supervisor for Arkansas Social Services in the initiation and investigation of a petition to remove child from person's custody due to a suspicion of child abuse were not outside supervisor's quasi-prosecutorial role as an advocate and were thus protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity, and a contention that supervisor's actions were motivated by malicious intent did not remove the protection afforded by absolute prosecutorial immunity. Fogle v. Benton County SCAN, 665 F. Supp. 729 (W.D. Ark. 1987) (decision under prior law).
Jurisdiction.
Juvenile court was proper court with jurisdiction to determine whether children should be placed in the temporary care of the state; the juvenile court properly refused to allow the parents to contest permanent custody of the children at the same proceeding since only the chancery courts have jurisdiction to hear custody cases between private litigants. Robins v. Ark. Soc. Servs., 273 Ark. 241, 617 S.W.2d 857 (1981), superseded by statute as stated in, Nance v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 316 Ark. 43, 870 S.W.2d 721 (1994) (decision under prior law).
Notice.
Trial court erred in terminating the father's parental rights based on abandonment because the father was in prison throughout the entirety of the proceeding, there was no evidence that he was served with the emergency order of custody, and the trial court's orders repeatedly found him to be in noncompliance with a case plan of which he had no knowledge. Brinkley v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2017 Ark. App. 625, 533 S.W.3d 639 (2017).
Parties.
Where children had been abandoned by parents, the state was the proper party plaintiff in its public guardianship capacity. Robins v. Ark. Soc. Servs., 273 Ark. 241, 617 S.W.2d 857 (1981), superseded by statute as stated in, Nance v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 316 Ark. 43, 870 S.W.2d 721 (1994) (decision under prior law).
Proof.
Where the state, in its capacity as public guardian of infants, is seeking an order to temporarily care for neglected or dependent children, the preponderance of the evidence standard is proper. Robins v. Ark. Soc. Servs., 273 Ark. 241, 617 S.W.2d 857 (1981), superseded by statute as stated in, Nance v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 316 Ark. 43, 870 S.W.2d 721 (1994) (decision under prior law).
Cited: Nance v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 316 Ark. 43, 870 S.W.2d 721 (1994); Dover v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 62 Ark. App. 37, 968 S.W.2d 635 (1998); Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Veasley, 2016 Ark. App. 175 (2016).