Ark. Code Ann. » Title 9 Chapter 09
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-9-201 (2020)

Short title

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This subchapter may be cited as the “Revised Uniform Adoption Act”.

History. Acts 1977, No. 735, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 56-201.

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

Carroll, Uniform Laws in Arkansas, 52 Ark. L. Rev. 313.

Morrison & Sievers, Adoption Law in Arkansas, 53 Ark. L. Rev. 1.

Case Notes

Cited: In re Parsons, 302 Ark. 427, 791 S.W.2d 681 (1990); In re J.L.T., 31 Ark. App. 85, 788 S.W.2d 494 (1990); Sides v. Beene, 327 Ark. 401, 938 S.W.2d 840 (1997).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2021 · leading case: Smith v. Pavan, 2016 Ark. 437, 505 S.W.3d 169.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Pavan, 2016 Ark. 437, 505 S.W.3d 169. · cites it 3× “§§ 9-9-201 et seq. Under the rationale of Obergefell, both married couples are to be treated equally.”
Matter of Adoption of Martindale, 940 S.W.2d 491 (Ark. 1997). · cites it 4× “Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to Rule l-2(a) (3) as an interpretation of the Arkansas Revised Uniform Adoption Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 9-9-201 et seq. (1993 & Supp.”
Matter of Adoption of Parsons, 791 S.W.2d 681 (Ark. 1990). · cites it 4× “The Revised Uniform Adoption Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 9-9-201 to -224 (1987 and Supp.”
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Farris, 832 S.W.2d 482 (Ark. 1992). · cites it 2× “matters governed by other law which arise during the pendency of the original proceedings under subsection (a)", which includes "Adoptions under the Revised Uniform Adoption Act, as amended, § 9-9-201." Apparently Mr. Miller considers the two pleadings filed prior to the March…”
Arkansas Democrat Gazzette v. Zimmerman, 20 S.W.3d 301 (Ark. 2000). “That statute reads: (2) All other hearings may be closed within the discretion of the court, except that in delinquency cases the juvenile shall have the right to an open hearing and in adoption cases the hearings shall be closed as provided in the Revised Uniform Adoption Act,…”
(In the Matter of the Adoption of A.M.P. & A.A.P.) Brince Plymale v. Jeremy Alan Rogers, 2021 Ark. 125, 623 S.W.3d 571. “§§ 9-9-201 through -224. Under the Act, a petition to adopt a minor may generally be granted only if written consent to the adoption is provided by the minor’s mother and father.”
In re the Adoption of J.L.T., 788 S.W.2d 494 (Ark. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “1981) and Ark. Code Ann. §§ 9-9-201 to 9-9-223 (1987).”
Brittany Kohler v. Randy Gene Croney, 2020 Ark. App. 289, 602 S.W.3d 123. “Section 9-9-206 states in relevant part that “a petition to adopt a minor may be granted only if written consent to a particular adoption has been executed by: (1) the mother of the minor. . . .” The only exception to this requirement is found in Arkansas Code Annotated section…”
Sides v. Beene, 938 S.W.2d 840 (Ark. 1997). · cites it 2× “1995), which provides that a final decree of adoption creates a parent-child relationship “as if the adopted individual were a legitimate blood descendant.”
In re the Adoption of D.J.M., 839 S.W.2d 535 (Ark. Ct. App. 1992). “(1) Adoptions under the Revised Uniform Adoption Act, as amended, § 9-9-201 et seq. Appellant argues that because the paternity proceeding was on appeal to the juvenile court when the adoption petition was filed in Montgomery County Probate, the adoption matter should have been…”
Matter of Adoption of Samant, 970 S.W.2d 249 (Ark. 1998). · cites it 2× “Our basis for doing so was our general interpretation of the intent behind the Revised Uniform Adoption Act, now codified, with amendments, at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 9-9-201 through 9-9-224 (Repl.”
Navarrete v. Creech, 2016 Ark. App. 414, 501 S.W.3d 871. · cites it 2× “On appeal, Navarrete contends that the trial court erred in granting Creech’s adoption petition because (1) Creech’s actions warrant application of the Arkansas clean-hands doctrine and (2) Na-varrete should be considered a “mother” within the meaning of Arkansas Code Annotated…”
Show all 15 citing cases →
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-9-201(a)(l): 1 case
Navarrete v. Creech, 2016 Ark. App. 414, 501 S.W.3d 871. “On appeal, Navarrete contends that the trial court erred in granting Creech’s adoption petition because (1) Creech’s actions warrant application of the Arkansas clean-hands doctrine and (2) Na-varrete should be considered a “mother” within the meaning of Arkansas Code Annotated…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.