Legal Opinion · Concurrence

In re Adoption of Baby Boy B.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 1, 2012No. 11-374Published

1ConcurrencePaul E. Danielson, Justice

Here, J.E.M. was required to present proof 11sof a significant custodial, personal, or financial relationship in order for his consent to be required pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 9-9-206(a)(2) (Repl. 2009).1 Like the majority, it is my opinion that he did; however, because I reach my conclusion somewhat differently, I concur.

Custodial Relationship

In the case before us, the child at issue was in útero, and it is undisputed that J.E.M. did not have legal or physical custody of his child; thus, the relevant inquiry is whether J.E.M. had a significant custodial relationship with Baby Boy…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Lehr v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. In re Raquel Marie X.New York Court of Appeals · 1990
  3. In Re Baby Girl EasonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1987
  4. Terrazas v. RiggsCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1980
  5. In Re CordyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API