In the Matter of the Guardianship of S.H.

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded a circuit court’s denial of a natural parent’s petition to terminate a consensual guardianship. The court held that a fit parent who revokes consent and informs the court that the conditions necessitating the guardianship no longer exist satisfies the initial burden of going forward, and that guardians must rebut the presumption favoring reunification by clear and convincing evidence. The court directed that the child be returned to the mother’s custody and that the guardianship be terminated.

Holdings

1. A fit natural parent who consented to a guardianship satisfies the burden of going forward by revoking consent and informing the court that the conditions necessitating the guardianship no longer exist. The parent need not prove a material change in circumstances or carry an affirmative burden of proof.
2. When a fit natural parent seeks to terminate a consensual guardianship, the guardians must rebut by clear and convincing evidence the presumption that termination is in the child's best interest.
3. The grandparents failed to rebut by clear and convincing evidence the presumption that terminating the guardianship was in S.H.'s best interest. The child's stability, adjustment, and bond with the grandparents, standing alone, were insufficient to overcome the fit mother's fundamental parental right.
4. The mother's challenge to the requirement that she continue participating in the child's counseling was moot because the court reversed the guardianship order and directed that S.H. be returned to her custody.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a fit natural parent who consented to a guardianship satisfies the initial burden in a termination proceeding by revoking consent and informing the court that the conditions necessitating the guardianship no longer exist.
2. Whether the circuit court improperly applied a material-change-in-circumstances or affirmative burden-of-proof standard to the mother's petition to terminate the guardianship.
3. What burden the guardians must satisfy to rebut the presumption that termination of a consensual guardianship is in the child's best interest.
4. Whether the grandparents rebutted that presumption by clear and convincing evidence.
5. Whether the mother's challenge to the requirement that she participate in the child's counseling was moot after the court ordered the child returned to her custody.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded