FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIFTEENTH DIVISION
[NO. 60DR-18-1161] HONORABLE RICHARD MOORE, JUDGE
M. Green, for appellant.
M. GLOVER, Judge
Childress appeals from the April 25, 2018 order of protection
entered against her and the deemed denial of her May 9, 2018
motion for new trial. As her sole point of appeal, she
contends the trial court erred in entering the order of
protection and denying her motion for new trial because the
court was biased against her-or at least gave the appearance
of bias-at the hearing on the petition for order of
protection. We affirm.
Greer, Childress's twenty-one-year-old biological
daughter, filed a petition and affidavit for an order of
protection on March 28, 2018, following a March 22, 2018
encounter between her, Childress, and other family members.
Greer's petition sought protection for herself and her
two children, Javante and Nyla Washington. The petition's
allegations were made under oath and stated in part:
"[Childress] got mad and told me she was going to kill
me, my children and everyone in the house. The police were
called and we went to a safe house. . . . [w]hen I was 5 me
and my sisters were taken away from [Kiesha Childress]
because of abuse." The petition also explained that
Little Rock police were called and the police "called
the safe house and me and my children went there."
parte order of protection was entered, and the hearing was
then held on April 25, 2018, following which the final order
of protection was entered on the same day. At the outset of
the hearing, the trial court commented to Greer that her
petition was one of the most straightforward that he had come
across in a long time, and he then read through the basic
allegations. Childress denied Greer's account of events,
claiming she- not Greer-was the victim, and she attempted to
introduce a police report of the incident. The trial court
"noted" an objection to the report that was never
actually raised by Childress, and the report was not allowed.
Greer acknowledged to the trial court she and her children
had gone to a safe house and had been directed there by
Little Rock police officers.
gave her account of events and explained the argument started
because she was asked to take the children to the store; she
said she was not going to drive the grandchildren without a
car seat; they called Childress's oldest daughter (who
Childress said was not supposed to come to her house) and
told her to pick up the children; and they all argued back
and forth. Childress said her other daughter, Kembria,
started hitting her; Childress called the police and made a
report; and Kembria "busted" the glass on
Childress's front door. She stated one of the officers
told her Greer was going to jail. The court interjected that
the statement was hearsay and would not be taken into
account. Childress again sought to have the police report
introduced and stated she was listed as the victim in the
report. The court replied that without a foundation, the
report would not be admitted.
court then allowed Greer to give her account of events. She
said she was not part of the case involving her sister,
Kembria, from the incident; she, Greer, was sent to a safe
house; Childress threatened her and her children; and she did
not feel safe. Childress acknowledged that Greer was not the
daughter who had been arrested.
Greer, Kemra's sister, testified Childress got mad at
everybody and said she was going to kill everybody in the
house; the police were called; and Kemra was escorted to the
said she had text messages that would shed light on the
events, but the court told her she would have to introduce
her phone to get those admitted because she had not brought
printouts of the messages.
trial court concluded it was convinced beyond a reasonable
doubt that Kemra had met the requirements for the court to
issue an order of protection. The court also found convincing
Kemra's request that the order last for a period of ten
years, explaining it understood when a person goes to a
shelter as a result of statements being made, that it was a
very strong indication the person felt imminent fear of
bodily harm either to the person or to the children.
mentioned previously, Childress's sole point of appeal is
that the trial court erred in entering the order of
protection and denying her motion for new trial because it
was biased against her-or at least gave the appearance of
bias-at the hearing on the petition for order of protection.
Both parties acted pro se at the hearing. Nothing remotely
resembling this argument was raised to the trial court.
Consequently, the issue was not preserved for our review on
appeal, and we will not address the merits of the argument.
See Terry v. White, 374 Ark. 366, 288 S.W.3d 194 ...