Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ingle v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 6, 2014No. CV-13-570Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partPaul E. Danielson, Justice

Because I wholeheartedly agree that the circuit court clearly erred in finding that it was in C.N.’s best |10interest to be placed in Mr. Neal’s permanent custody, I concur, and I would reverse and remand. I strongly dissent, however, from this court’s further direction to the circuit court to return custody to Ms. Ingle forthwith.

There is no question in my mind that the circuit court clearly erred when it placed permanent custody of C.N. with Mr. Neal in November 2012. Therefore, it is appropriate for this court to reverse the matter and remand it, as that has historically been this court’s…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Narisi v. NarisiSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1959
  2. Cochran v. CochranSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
  3. Mahone v. Arkansas Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2011
  4. Fye v. TubbsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1966

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

Powered by the Exa API