ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
DIVISION IV

TERRY RICHARDSON

APPELLANT

V.

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

APPELLEE

CA03-666

November 19, 2003

APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. JV-2002-436-6]

HON. THOMAS BROWN,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

Josephine Linker Hart, Judge

Terry Richardson appeals the decision of the trial court adjudicating her nine-year-old daughter, Ariel Crompton, dependent and neglected. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in determining that Ariel was dependent-neglected because appellee, Department of Human Services (DHS), did not prove that appellant knew or should have known that her other child, Jordan, had been subjected to abuse by her boyfriend. We hold that the issue of mootness with regard to the appeal is an important one, and we order the parties to rebrief that issue for our consideration.

On November 6, 2002, appellant and her live-in boyfriend, Anthony Simmons, took Jordan and Ariel to the Jefferson Regional Medical Center due to Jordan's need for immediate medical attention. Jordan died as a result of the injuries to her abdomen. Simmons was later charged with capital murder in Jordan's death. On November 7, 2002, DHS placed an emergency seventy-two-hour hold on Ariel. Five days later, an order was entered for custody of Ariel to be placed with DHS. At the probable cause hearing on November 19, 2002, the court removed custody from appellant, continued custody with DHS, and set a review hearing for December 2002. On November 21, 2002, temporary custody of Ariel was changed to her father, Clifton Crompton. Ruling from the bench during the hearing on December 18, 2002, the trial court returned custody of Ariel to appellant; however, no written order memorialized the oral order. Then, on February 18, 2003, while continuing custody with appellant, the court entered an adjudication order and found that Ariel was dependent and neglected.

Appellant's notice of appeal regarding the adjudication order was filed on March 17, 2003. Although not included in the abstract, a review and closure order was filed on May 21, 2003. In that order, the trial court granted DHS's motion to close the case, finding that Ariel remaining in her mother's custody was not contrary to her welfare, that it was not in Ariel's best interests to be in the care of DHS, that DHS made reasonable efforts to provide services, and that appellant complied with the case plan and orders of the court. We order rebriefing so that the parties may address whether the May 21 review and closure order that dismissed the case rendered the issue on appeal moot.

In Arkansas Department of Human Services v. State, 318 Ark. 294, 885 S.W.2d 14 (1994), the court refused to review an appeal where a fifteen-year-old male was placed in DHS custody for the express purpose of receiving treatment and aftercare following his being charged with possession of cocaine. DHS argued that the placement with the agency was improper because the court failed to comply with the requisite statute. However, the court held that the issue was moot because at the time of the disposition hearing, the juvenile had been released to his mother's custody. The court stated:

Mootness may not determine whether we review a case which involves public interest, or tends to become moot before litigation can run its course, or in which a decision might avert future litigation.... Most cases become moot due to events which transpire in the course of litigation.... When, however, mootness is the result of the complaining litigant receiving from the Trial Court the relief requested, we are not inclined to review the matter.

Id. at 297, 885 S.W.2d at 16 (1994) (quoting Mastin v. Mastin, 316 Ark. 327, 329, 871 S.W.2d 585, 586 (1994)).

In the present case, it appears that custody of Ariel was returned to appellant on December 18, 2002. Thereafter, Ariel was continuously in appellant's custody even though the trial court found Ariel to be dependent and neglected on February 18, 2003. However, a review and closure order dismissed the case on May 21, 2003. Thus, the May 21 order raises the question of whether this appeal is moot. See Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. M.D.M. Corp., 295 Ark. 549, 750 S.W.2d 57 (1988). Because we neither issue advisory opinions nor decide moot cases, we order the parties to rebrief the issue of mootness on this appeal. Ford Motor Co. v. Harper, 351 Ark. 559, 95 S.W.3d 810 (2003).

Rebriefing ordered.

Bird and Vaught, JJ., agree.