adjudication hearing in Arkansas

2020Id.

2020Id.

2023Id.

2018Id. at 7 .

2024Id.

2018The ad litem cites Walker, supra , which also dealt with this issue: Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-327(a)(2) provides that at the adjudication hearing, "[u]nless the court finds that a removal occurred due to an emergency and the agency had no prior contact with the family or the child, evidence shall be presented to the court regarding all prior contact between the agency and the juvenile or the family before a finding of reasonable efforts to prevent removal by the Department of Human Services." In her brief, appellant argues that because DHS had prior contact with appellant and the c

2024App. 328, at 8 , 603 S.W.3d 858, 862 . 1 Jodi does not contest the court’s order finding MC1 dependent-neglected. 6 The purpose of an adjudication hearing is to determine whether the allegations in the petition are substantiated by the proof.

2024App. 328, at 8 , 603 S.W.3d 858, 862 . 1 Jodi does not contest the court’s order finding MC1 dependent-neglected. 6 The purpose of an adjudication hearing is to determine whether the allegations in the petition are substantiated by the proof.

2023Id.

2021Id.

2022Although he acknowledges that he failed to request these findings at the adjudication hearing, he nevertheless argues that his failure to do so does not waive his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, citing our opinion in Burks v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2021 Ark.

2022Although he acknowledges that he failed to request these findings at the adjudication hearing, he nevertheless argues that his failure to do so does not waive his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, citing our opinion in Burks v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2021 Ark.

2020App. 216 , 518 S.W.3d 725 , to support her assertion that the circumstances that exist at the time of the adjudication hearing dictate whether the child is dependent-neglected.

2017Code Ann. § 9-27-327 (a)(1)(A). 25 See id. § 9-27-303(36)(A)(ii). 26 See id. § 9-27-303(36)(A)(vi). 9 Cite as 2017 Ark.

2018App. 722 , 479 S.W.3d 25 , and held that the trial court abused its discretion in not recusing from criminal proceedings when it had previously presided over an adjudication hearing.

2015An adjudication hearing was held on July 1, 2014, at the conclusion of which, Cite as 2015 Ark.

2013On March 30, 2011, appellant filed a second motion to dismiss for lack of 2 Cite as 2013 Ark.

2013On March 30, 2011, appellant filed a second motion to dismiss for lack of 2 Cite as 2013 Ark.

2021Id., 574 S.W.3d at 685 .

2021Id., 574 S.W.3d at 685 .

2020Further, as we stated in Potterton v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, “the proceedings and orders pertaining to the termination of parental rights ‘build on one another,’ and the findings of previous hearings are elements of subsequent hearings.” 2017 Ark.

2019Eason , 2012 Ark.

2018Id.

2018Id.

2017His rights were not terminated by the order on appeal; thus, he is not a party to this appeal. 3 The court also found that Max McKinney, the noncustodial parent, had contributed to the dependency-neglect of the children as a result of his drug usage. 2 Cite as 2017 Ark.

2017App. 724 , 452 S.W.3d 123 , in which this court reversed the circuit court’s refusal to allow parent counsel to call any witnesses at the adjudication hearing: .“The trial court’s refusal to allow Thompson to call witnesses on his behalf denied Thompson an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner. ...

2017By failing to allow Thompson to present his witnesses, the trial court denied Thompson’s fundamental right to due process.” Id. at 4, 452 S.W.3d at 125 .

2016Id.

2016In reply, Rodgers continues to insist that “[s]he cannot be required to remedy an issue or condition that was not determined to exist at the time of the adjudication hearing” and cites Jackson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2013 Ark.

2016App. 411 , 429 S.W.3d 276 , in support.

2016Her brief does not challenge the circuit court’s denial of her motion to continue the adjudication hearing or the factual findings made in the adjudication order. 3 Cite as 2016 Ark.

2016Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-327(a)(1)(A) provides that an adjudication hearing shall be held to determine whether the allegations in a petition are substantiated by the proof. 7 Cite as 2016 Ark.

2016Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-327(a)(1)(A) provides that an adjudication hearing shall be held to determine whether the allegations in a petition are substantiated by the proof. 7 Cite as 2016 Ark.

2016I acknowledge that Judge Elmore was not excused from the requirement of the 14 Cite as 2016 Ark. 319 appearance of impartiality simply because she was not the fact-finder in Ferguson’s criminal trial.

2016An adjudication hearing was held on April 6, 2016, and on the same day, the trial court entered an order finding that DHS had failed to meet its burden of proving that the Cite as 2016 Ark.

2016At the termination hearing, Chris again asserted that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel did not inform him of his right to appeal the adjudication order. 7 Cite as 2016 Ark. 231 In her oral argument to the circuit court, Anita asserted that she had received ineffective assistance of counsel, “the adjudication hearing was not a meaningful hearing, and was not advised of the right to appeal.” Chris joined in this argument asserting that he did not receive a meaningful hearing and received ineffective assistance of counsel.

2016Attorney for [Anita] . . . requesting that this court 8 Cite as 2016 Ark. 231 find that the adjudication hearing in this case was not a meaningful hearing is denied.

2015An adjudication hearing shall be held Cite as 2015 Ark.

2015At the adjudication hearing, the Fergusons’ teenage foster daughters, B.K. and A.H., Cite as 2015 Ark.

2015Cite as 2015 Ark. 221 A.S.’s adoptive parents filed an objection, and the court held a second hearing on January 28, 2015, at which time Dick Jarboe appeared as counsel.