Summary
In Bell v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 66, we ordered rebriefing because counsel failed to comply with Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Counsel then filed a substituted brief, and we again ordered rebriefing in Bell v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 103, for failure to comply with Rule 4-3(k).
Summary of this case from Bell v. StateOpinion
CA 09-736
Opinion Delivered January 20, 2010
Appeal from the Craighead County Circuit Court, [No. JV 2008-223], Honorable Cindy Thyer, Judge, Affirmed; Motion to Withdraw Granted.
Christine Angela Henfling appeals from an order entered April 14, 2009, by the Craighead County Circuit Court, terminating her parental rights to her son L.H., born May 27, 2008. Henfling's attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a no-merit brief pursuant to Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(i). Counsel's motion is accompanied by an abstract, addendum, and brief discussing all adverse rulings and explaining why these rulings present no meritorious ground for reversal. The clerk of this court sent copies of counsel's brief and motion to Henfling, informing her that she had the right to file pro se points for reversal. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(i)(3). Henfling has filed a pro se response that does not raise any specific point for reversal. However, she does assert that she had complied with the court's orders and asks for more time to be reunited with her son. The Arkansas Department of Human Services has not filed a brief.
After carefully examining the record and the brief presented to us, we find that counsel has complied with the requirements established by the Arkansas Supreme Court for no-merit appeals in termination cases and also conclude that the appeal is wholly without merit. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the order terminating Henfling's parental rights.
Affirmed; motion granted.
GLOVER and BROWN, JJ., agree.