Seth Otwell v. Lizett Otwell

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 486
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CV-23-471

Opinion Delivered October 9, 2024
SETH OTWELL
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE COLUMBIA
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 14PR-21-161]

HONORABLE DAVID W. TALLEY,
LIZETT OTWELL JR., JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED

N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Judge

The Columbia County Circuit Court granted the petition of Lizett Otwell to adopt

the three minor children of her stepson, Seth Otwell. On appeal, Seth argues that the circuit

court abused its discretion in admitting a home study, erred in finding that his consent to

the adoption was waived, and erred in finding that the adoption was in the children’s best

interest. We affirm the circuit court’s order.

Seth and Kayla Howerton are the parents of three children born in 2011, 2012, and

2017.1 In 2016, the older two children were removed from Kayla’s custody by the Arkansas

Department of Human Services (DHS) due to her drug use. A dependency-neglect case was

1
Like Seth, Kayla opposed the adoption petition below, but the circuit court found
that her consent was waived. She is not a party to this appeal, and the evidence regarding
her is not relevant.
open until custody was returned to Kayla in the fall of 2017. Seth had two periods of

incarceration relevant to this case. The first period involved the charge of second-degree

battery on a law enforcement officer, and Seth was incarcerated from October 8, 2016, until

August 13, 2018.2 Less than eight months after his release, Seth was incarcerated again on

April 7, 2019, for possession of methamphetamine, and he was not released until August

26, 2020.

During the dependency-neglect case and Seth’s incarcerations, the children lived for

much of the time at the home of Carmen Borne, Seth’s maternal grandmother. Lizett

testified that she became involved when Seth was in prison because there were issues with

Kayla living at Carmen’s house. Lizett said that drugs had been found at the home, that the

police had been called, and that Kayla had altercations with Seth’s mother, Terri Johnson.

Lizett said that she started taking the children for weekends to give Carmen and Terri a

break. Lizett and Seth’s father, Tim Otwell, petitioned to be named guardians of the

children in October 2019 after an incident in which Terri called Lizett because Kayla was

attempting to take one of the children from the house while under the influence of drugs.

A temporary guardianship was granted in October 2019 with Seth’s consent, and on January

2
For the first time in his reply brief, Seth disputes that he was incarcerated for twenty-
two consecutive months, stating, without citation to the record, that he was present for the
birth of his child in 2017. However, the circuit court’s order clearly set out its findings
regarding the dates of Seth’s incarceration, and Seth did not dispute the dates in his opening
brief; instead, he admitted that “[h]e was then incarcerated from October 8, 2016 until
August 2018.” It is well established that we will not consider an argument made for the first
time in a reply brief. Sanders v. Passmore, 2016 Ark. App. 370, 499 S.W.3d 237.

2
6, 2020, Tim and Lizett were named the children’s permanent guardians. Despite the

guardianship, the children did not move in with Tim and Lizett for several months. Lizett

testified that she did not want to “rip the kids” from Carmen’s home and that Carmen would

get upset every time they intended to move them. Although the children were not fully

moved until July 2020, they had been spending time at Lizett and Tim’s home four or five

times a week. Lizett put the children in counseling to help with the transition.

After Seth’s release from prison in August 2020, he lived with Carmen. Seth began

spending time with the children at Tim and Lizett’s home and had the children stay with

him at Carmen’s home about every other weekend. In March 2021, however, Tim and Lizett

began significantly limiting Seth’s contact with the children. According to Seth, a “falling

out” occurred with Tim after Seth chose to play golf on a couple of occasions instead of

helping work at the family store. Lizett testified that they began restricting Seth’s visitation

due to a threatening phone call he made and concerns that he was drinking alcohol around

the children.

In August 2021, Seth filed a motion to terminate the guardianship or, in the

alternative, for visitation. Tim and Lizett filed a petition to adopt the children in December

2021. Tim passed away in April 2022, and Lizett filed an amended adoption petition in

June 2022. The adoption hearing was held over two days in August and October 2022. The

record was reopened on two occasions before the court entered a final order granting the

adoption. The court found that Seth’s consent to the adoption was not required due to his

3
failure to communicate with the children or to provide for their care and support. The court

further found that the adoption was in the children’s best interest.

We review adoption proceedings de novo on the record. In re Adoption of T.A.D.,

2019 Ark. App. 510, 588 S.W.3d 858. Adoption statutes are strictly construed, and a person

wishing to adopt a child without the consent of the parent must prove, by clear and

convincing evidence, that consent is unnecessary. Id. The court must further find by clear

and convincing evidence that the adoption is in the best interest of the child. In re Adoption

of AP, 2021 Ark. App. 440, 638 S.W.3d 293. We will not reverse a circuit court’s decision

unless it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence, giving due regard to the

opportunity and superior position of the circuit court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.

Id. In cases involving minor children, a heavier burden is cast upon the circuit court to

utilize fully all its power of perception in evaluating the witnesses, their testimony, and the

children’s best interest. Id. An appellate court has no such opportunity, and we know of no

case in which the superior position, ability, and opportunity of the circuit court to observe

the parties carries as great a weight as one involving minor children. Id.

I. Home Study

After the adoption hearings were held but before issuing a ruling, the circuit court

entered an order reopening the record for the purpose of obtaining a home study on Lizett’s

home. The court noted that although the issue was not raised at the hearings or in the

posthearing briefs, Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-9-212 (Supp. 2023) requires a home

4
study unless an exception is met. After the home study was performed and filed, the circuit

court entered the final order.

Seth argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting the home study

after the hearing because Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-9-212(b)(4)(B) provides that a

home study “shall be filed with the court before the petition is heard.” He further argues

that it was an abuse of discretion to admit the home study into evidence without affording

him the opportunity to cross-examine the preparer. These arguments were required to be

raised to the circuit court to preserve them for appellate review. See Wilson v. Golen, 2013

Ark. App. 267, 427 S.W.3d 723. Seth did not object to the court’s reopening the record or

admitting the home study, and he did not request an opportunity to cross-examine its

preparer. Because the arguments were not raised below, we do not reach the merits of these

arguments.3

II. Consent

Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-9-207(a)(2) (Repl. 2020), consent to

adoption is not required of

a parent of a child in the custody of another, if the parent for a period of at least one
(1) year has failed significantly without justifiable cause (i) to communicate with the

3
In his reply brief, Seth argues that because he was denied the right of cross-
examination, we should reach his arguments pursuant to the fourth Wicks exception to the
contemporaneous-objection rule—when the admission or exclusion of evidence affects a
defendant’s substantial rights. See Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781, 606 S.W.2d 366 (1980).
However, our case law is quite clear that Wicks presents only narrow exceptions that are to
be rarely applied, and these exceptions are not intended to apply where a party simply fails
to make a contemporaneous objection. See Witherspoon v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 468 (refusing
to apply the Wicks exceptions to an alleged Confrontation Clause error).

5
child or (ii) to provide for the care and support of the child as required by law or
judicial decree.

Justifiable cause means that the significant failure must be willful in the sense of being

voluntary and intentional; it must appear that the parent acted arbitrarily and without just

cause or adequate excuse. T.A.D., supra. “Failed significantly” does not mean “failed totally.”

Id. The one-year requirement applies to any one-year period between the date of the child’s

birth and the date the petition for adoption is filed and is not limited to the year immediately

preceding the filing of the adoption petition. Id.

Seth challenges the circuit court’s findings regarding both communication and care

and support. We address the care-and-support ground. The court found that Seth had failed

significantly without justifiable cause to provide for the children’s care and support as

required by law for three periods of time in excess of a year: for his first period of

incarceration from October 8, 2016, through August 13, 2018; for his second period of

incarceration from April 7, 2019, through August 26, 2020; and from August 26, 2020, until

December 28, 2021.

Seth argues that the court put undue emphasis on his incarcerations and failed to

account for the “care” component of the statute. He argues that he regularly provided care

for the children from his release in August 2020 until March 2021, and Tim and Lizett

thwarted his attempts to continue such care. Seth argues that his lack of financial support

was justified because neither his divorce decree nor the guardianship orders required him to

6
pay support, and Lizett never sought support and made clear that she was financially capable

of taking care of the children without assistance.

We cannot say that the circuit court clearly erred in finding that Seth failed without

justifiable cause to provide for the care and support of the children as required by law during

his periods of incarceration. While incarceration is not, of itself, conclusive on the

termination issue, imprisonment does not toll a parent’s responsibilities toward his child.

T.A.D., supra. A father’s duty to support his minor child cannot be excused on the basis of

the conduct of others, unless that conduct prevents him from performing his duty. Id. In

Sharp v. Pike, 2015 Ark. App. 670, 476 S.W.3d 217, the appellant, like Seth, argued that she

had never been ordered to pay child support and noted her disputed testimony that she had

offered to pay support, but the other party refused it. We held that the facts were undisputed

that for more than a one-year period, the appellant failed to provide any care or support for

the child. Although no order had been entered requiring the appellant to pay child support,

a parent cannot turn a child’s care and support over to another and thereby be excused from

the duty of providing support, a duty that exists whether ordered by a court or not. Id. (citing

In re Adoption of Glover, 288 Ark. 59, 702 S.W.2d 12 (1986)).

Unlike the cases cited by Seth, the orders addressing custody in this case did not

address child support and, in any event, were not entered until after his first period of

incarceration. Seth argues that Lizett’s petition did not allege any failures in care or support

for any period before October 2019, but he does not cite any authority that would limit the

court’s consideration of the evidence of nonpayment that was presented. Lizett’s assertion

7
in a May 2020 letter that Seth had always maintained employment and provided for his

children “up until his incarceration” has no bearing on the court’s findings regarding the

lack of care and support during the incarcerations. Finally, Seth’s argument that COVID

prevented any opportunity to work in prison after March 2020 cannot excuse his failure to

provide support for more than two and a half years before then. As the circuit court found,

Seth’s incarceration was due to his own actions and cannot be blamed on anyone other than

himself.

III. Best Interest

The circuit court found that when the adoption petition was filed, the children had

been out of Seth’s custody for significant portions of their lives—nearly 50 percent for the

older two children and over 50 percent for the youngest. The court found that Seth had not

acted in the children’s best interest when he, among other things, committed the felony

offenses of battery on a law enforcement officer and possession of a controlled substance

resulting in two incarcerations; used illegal substances when he had custody of the children;

engaged in domestic violence against the children’s mother; failed to contribute to the

children’s support; tested positive for THC; and violated the court’s order regarding a

nailbed drug test. The court found that Lizett had provided a home for the children for

more than two years, which provided safety and stability that their parents had not provided.

The court found that it was in the children’s best interest that they be adopted by Lizett

because she had demonstrated care and the ability to provide for their safety, security, and

future.

8
Seth argues that Tim and Lizett prevented the children from having contact with him

and other family members “when the only ‘issue’ they ever had with Seth’s visits was that he

would return them 5 minutes to a half hour late and would request to spend more time with

his children.” Seth points to a letter Lizett wrote in May 2020 in support of his release from

prison in which she states that he is a good father, and the children miss him and ask about

him. He notes that since his release in August 2020, he had gone to school, become gainfully

employed, gotten married, passed drug screens, and maintained a home and transportation.

He argues that Lizett had only one example of alleged volatile behavior—a March 2021 phone

call—and argues that there were no allegations of anger or hostile behavior toward the

children.

Seth’s initial argument mischaracterizes Lizett’s testimony. Lizett testified that after

Seth’s release in 2020, the children would spend weekends with him at Carmen’s home.

Lizett said that “at that time it wasn’t like we felt like there was an issue with Seth or them

going over to their grandmother’s house. The only issue we had is when we would tell them

to bring them home at a certain time. They never had them home on time.” Eventually,

however, Lizett said that she and Tim began noticing that Seth had not completely “changed

his ways.”

Lizett described the incident in March 2021 in which Seth called Tim at about 1:00

a.m. and yelled at his father to come outside and bring his gun “because he’s going to need

it.” Two of the children were at home, and Tim told Lizett to call the police because they

assumed Seth was outside. Because of the way Seth was yelling on the phone, they thought

9
Seth had been drinking, and this was not the first time they had thought that. The police

came but did not find Seth on the property, and Tim declined to press charges. Lizett stated

that she was concerned about this decision because she had known Seth to have been violent

on several occasions in the past. She described one incident a few years before in which she

alleged that Seth grabbed Tim’s daughter’s neck and tried to choke her, and when Tim tried

to protect his daughter, Seth hit Tim. Other evidence of violence was presented through

Kayla’s testimony that she had filed for an order of protection against Seth in 2019 alleging

he had kicked her leg and had sex with her while she was unconscious. This testimony was

apparently the basis of the court’s finding that Seth had failed to act in the best interest of

his children when he committed domestic violence against their mother.

Although Lizett acknowledged the ways in which Seth had improved his life since his

release from prison, she testified that he had not changed his attitude and “ways” because he

still exhibited anger and volatile behavior. She said that this was evidenced by Seth’s threats

and by comments made on Facebook toward her. She said that Seth had posted her phone

number and asked people to call her so he could get the children back. Lizett testified that

she had a fear of Seth based on his previous behavior. She also believed that visits with the

parents made the oldest child angrier and resulted in his backtalking and punching his

siblings.

Lizett was also concerned that Seth would return to drug use, noting that he had not

taken a court-ordered drug test. In December 2021, the court ordered Seth to submit to a

nailbed drug test and to not alter his nails before the test. Seth appeared for the test, but

10
the employee who attempted to perform the test testified that he had freshly cut nails that

were too short to test. Seth testified that he keeps his nails short because he’s a diesel

mechanic, and he had not gone back to have the test done because he was not able to afford

it. The court found that Seth deliberately violated the court’s order by cutting his nails so

samples could not be taken. Seth submitted to a hair-follicle test in August 2022, which was

positive for carboxy-THC.4 Although Seth had not tested positive when drug tested by his

parole officer, in September 2022, his urine sample was a bluish-green color, which was a

color his parole officer testified she had never seen before and indicated potential

adulteration of the sample.5

Although Seth had made improvements in his life, Lizett had been providing

consistent care and support for the children for three years, and the children had lived in

her home for more than two years. Parental rights are not proprietary ones and are subject

to the performance of duties and obligations of a parent to care for and support a child, and

the law protects the rights of parents only so long as the parent discharges these duties.

Newkirk v. Hankins, 2016 Ark. App. 186, 486 S.W.3d 827. We will not place a parent and

his relatives’ want of a relationship with a child over the child’s need for a stable and

permanent home. See id. Giving due deference to the circuit court’s superior position to

4
Seth attributed this to a vape, which he mistakenly thought was CBD and only tried
one time.
5
Seth tested negative the following day.

11
observe the witnesses and evaluate the children’s best interest, we cannot conclude that the

circuit court’s finding was clearly erroneous.

Affirmed.

ABRAMSON and BROWN, JJ., agree.

Appellate Solutions, PLLC, by: Deborah Truby Riordan; and Landgon*Davis, L.L.P., by:

Brent M. Langdon, for appellant.

Robertson, Oswalt & Nony, by: Chris Oswalt, for appellee.

12