Hannah Bailey v. Matthew Kirkendoll

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 90
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CV-24-834

HANNAH BAILEY Opinion Delivered February 11, 2026

APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
V. WESTERN DISTRICT
[NO. 16JDR-23-369]
MATTHEW KIRKENDOLL
APPELLEE HONORABLE TONYA M.
ALEXANDER, JUDGE

REVERSED AND REMANDED

STEPHANIE POTTER BARRETT, Judge

Appellant, Hannah Bailey, appeals the Craighead County Circuit Court’s order

denying her petition for single-parent adoption and awarding joint custody and establishing

visitation with appellee, Matthew Kirkendoll. Hannah argues two points on appeal: (1) the

circuit court erred in denying the petition for adoption, and (2) the circuit court erred in

awarding joint custody of the child and establishing visitation. We reverse and remand

because the circuit court failed to conduct the statutory analysis necessary to determine

whether Matthew’s consent was required.

Hannah and Matthew are the parents of one minor child (“MC”) born in 2020.

Hannah and Matthew had a one-night sexual encounter in 2020 that resulted in Hannah’s
pregnancy. The parties were not married at the time of MC’s birth, and paternity had not

been established.

On March 10, 2023, Hannah filed a petition to adopt as a single parent. In her

petition, she alleged that she anticipated Matthew would consent to the adoption. On April

12, 2023, Matthew filed a response and objection to Hannah’s petition for adoption

asserting that he had also filed a separate petition to establish paternity, custody, visitation

and support in the same court and requested that the cases be heard simultaneously. On

April 29, 2024, Hannah moved for a determination that consent is not required, asserting

Matthew’s consent to the adoption was not required under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-9-207 (Repl.

2020).

A final hearing was held on August 1, 2024. At the outset of the hearing, the circuit

court consolidated Matthew’s paternity case with the adoption case. With paternity

undisputed, the circuit court announced, before the commencement of testimony, that it

was entering an order and judgment of paternity.

Matthew testified that after learning Hannah was pregnant, he requested proof of

paternity. After DNA testing confirmed paternity in November 2020, Matthew began visiting

MC at Hannah’s residence and continued those visits through July 2021. He stated that all

the visits occurred at Hannah’s residence except for three, and Hannah set the visitation

schedule. Matthew testified that in April 2021, Hannah decided visits would occur on

Tuesdays and Thursdays. On some occasions, Matthew’s wife would exercise his visitation

with MC because he traveled for work and was not in town. All of Matthew’s visits occurred

2
with Hannah and at least one of her friends or family members was present. The parties

disputed the frequency of Matthew’s visits between December 2020 and July 2021, but both

agreed that Matthew last saw MC on July 29, 2021.

Hannah testified that during Matthew’s visits with MC, he would go to the bathroom

frequently, which caused her to suspect drug use. Matthew testified that he suffers from

irritable bowel syndrome and severe acid reflux. Before Matthew’s July 29, 2021 visit,

Hannah placed a video camera in her bathroom in an attempt to videotape him using drugs.

The video was played at the hearing, though the video did not depict any drug use.

Sara Burchfield, Hannah’s friend, testified that she helped Hannah set up the camera

in the bathroom to videotape Matthew. She stated that during that visit, after Matthew went

to the bathroom, she went into the bathroom and ran her hand on the back of the toilet

and felt what she believed to be cocaine. Neither she nor Hannah called the authorities.

Matthew denied using cocaine in Hannah’s bathroom that day but acknowledged he

is a former drug user and testified regarding his cocaine history and recovery efforts. He

testified that he attended inpatient rehabilitation in June 2022 after receiving criminal

charges for possession of cocaine and tampering; those charges were later dismissed in May

2023. He also testified that he attended rehabilitation again in August 2023, and after

completing a thirty-day program, he continued outpatient treatment. He further testified

that he has participated in substance-abuse therapy and mental-health counseling, has a

sponsor, and attends weekly NA meetings three or four times a week. He testified that there

3
were no drugs present at Hannah’s home, and he never used drugs while around MC.

Matthew testified that he was approximately 110 days sober on the date of the hearing.

Matthew testified that after July 2021, Hannah blocked his phone number, blocked

him on social media, and blocked some of his friends and family members. However,

Matthew continued sending text messages to Hannah until February 2023. Hannah testified

that she blocked Matthew’s phone number on October 26, 2021, and blocked the phone

numbers of Matthew’s mother, sister, and stepfather. She also stated that Matthew’s wife

later texted her several times, but she did not respond.

Matthew testified that Hannah has lived in the same residence since MC’s birth. He

stated he asked Hannah whether he could drop off items for MC, but Hannah told his wife

they could not come further than her mailbox. Matthew testified that he drove by multiple

times a week and attempted to drop off items and gifts for MC, including on MC’s birthday,

but did not want to trespass on Hannah’s property because she told him he was not allowed.

As to support, Matthew testified he sent Hannah money via CashApp on multiple

occasions in 2021 and purchased formula and diapers during that time. He further testified

that he paid a portion of Hannah’s medical bills directly to Hannah before MC’s birth.

Matthew acknowledged he did not send money through CashApp in 2022, 2023, or 2024

and did not attempt to mail checks. He further testified that he did not provide support after

Hannah filed the adoption petition and that the last time he sent money was in August 2021.

Hannah testified that she did not receive checks in the mail and did not receive any

additional CashApp payments beyond those made in 2021.

4
Following the hearing, the circuit court entered a written order on August 22, 2024.

The circuit court found that Hannah actively thwarted Matthew’s attempts to visit MC and

specifically found that Hannah’s testimony about the alleged drug use by Matthew in her

home was not credible. The circuit court denied Hannah’s petition for single-parent

adoption; ordered the parties to share joint custody, with Hannah’s home being the primary

residence for MC; and awarded Matthew visitation consistent with the circuit court’s

minimum visitation schedule. From that decision comes this appeal.

Adoption proceedings are reviewed de novo, and a circuit court’s decision will not be

disturbed unless clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the opportunity and superior

position of that court to determine the credibility of the witnesses. Forrest v. Fleming, 2024

Ark. App. 104, at 8, 685 S.W.3d 270, 276. A finding is clearly erroneous when, despite

evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with the firm conviction that a mistake has

been made. Id. This court construes adoption statutes strictly, and a person who wishes to

adopt a child without the consent of the parent must prove consent is unnecessary by clear

and convincing evidence. In re Adoption of MC, 2024 Ark. App. 579, at 6–7, 701 S.W.3d 61,

65.

Hannah argues that Matthew’s consent was not required under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-

9-206(a)(2) (Repl. 2020), and the circuit court therefore erred in denying the adoption

5
petition.1 Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-9-206 sets forth the persons whose consent is

required before a petition of adoption may be granted. Under subsection (a)(2), a father’s

consent to adoption of a minor child is required if:

(A) The father was married to the mother at the time the minor was conceived or
at any time thereafter;

(B) The minor is his child by adoption;

(C) He has physical custody of the minor at the time the petition is filed;

(D) He has a written order granting him legal custody of the minor at the time the
petition for adoption is filed;

(E) A court has adjudicated him to be the legal father prior to the time the petition
for adoption is filed;

(F) He proves a significant custodial, personal, or financial relationship existed
with the minor before the petition for adoption is filed; or

(G) He has acknowledged paternity under § 9-10-120(a).

Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-9-207 identifies when consent to an adoption

may be excused.2 Relevant here, subdivision (a)(2) provides that consent is not required of a

parent who, for a period of at least one year, has failed significantly and without justifiable

cause either to communicate or provide care or support for the child as required by law or

1
Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-9-206 was amended effective August 5, 2025.
Since the events in this case predate the amendment of the statute, we rely on the prior
version of the statute.
2
Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-9-207 was amended effective August 5, 2025.
Again, we rely on the prior version of the statute as it existed at the time of the events at
issue.

6
judicial decree. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-9-207(a)(2). These statutes operate together: section 9-9-

206(a)(2) determines whether an individual is a person whose consent is required, and

section 9-9-207 provides exceptions under which otherwise required consent may be excused.

Before a circuit court may decide whether a parent’s consent is excused under section

9-9-207, it must first determine whether that parent falls within a category of persons whose

consent is required under section 9-9-206. Here, the record does not reflect that the circuit

court applied section 9-9-206(a)(2) or made any findings as to whether Matthew is a father

whose consent is required under the statute. See Britton v. Gault, 80 Ark. App. 311, 315, 94

S.W.3d 926, 929 (2003). Although this court reviews adoption cases de novo, the circuit

court should have the first opportunity to analyze the evidence under the applicable statute.

Id. Therefore, we reverse and remand for the circuit court to determine if Matthew’s consent

was required under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-9-206(a)(2).

Reversed and remanded.

ABRAMSON and GLADWIN, JJ., agree.

Streit Law Firm, PLLC, by: Jonathan R. Streit, for appellant.

Delta Law PLLC, by: Kelsie W. Rogers, for appellee.

7