In re Adoption of Baby Boy B.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
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
- Lehr v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- In re Raquel Marie X.New York Court of Appeals · 1990
- In Re Baby Girl EasonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1987
- Terrazas v. RiggsCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1980
- In Re CordyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.