Chris Taffner and Anita Taffner, Appellants v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and N.t., A.t., — Hart, J…

Summary

Justice Hart, dissenting, would hold that the Taffners were denied due process because the circuit judge acted with objective bias, changed the adjudication issues without adequate notice, relied on untested hearsay, and supplied critical proof herself. She would also find ineffective assistance because counsel failed to preserve the errors and advise the parents of their appeal rights, and would reverse and remand for a new adjudication before an unbiased judge. Justice Danielson, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would likewise reverse for ineffective assistance, while Justice Wood, concurring, would affirm based on untimeliness and would reject or reconsider the existing approach to such claims.