Page:Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Dowdy.pdf/15

 our review is to have any teeth, however, I cannot conclude that the circuit court's actions in this case were based on substantial evidence or reasonable inferences. For evidence to be substantial, it must "pass beyond suspicion or conjecture." Thompson v. State, 2016 Ark. 383, at 6, 503 S.W.3d 62, 66. The majority concludes that the circuit court satisfied this standard, seemingly crediting the leap of logic expressed by the circuit court at the close of the contempt hearing, that "Ms. Eneks had an opinion either currently or in the past that was opposite to that taken by Mr. Huffman or the department as to placement." Simply put, the evidence supporting that conclusion is thin, Eneks's own testimony contradicts it, and even assuming it were true, there is no law, rule, or norm that would support the idea that criminal contempt is the proper tool with which circuit courts should regulate the presence or absence of uncalled potential witnesses.

I respectfully dissent.

 Andrew Firth, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellant.

Chrestman Group, PLLC, by: Keith L. Chrestman, attorney ad litem for minor children.

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass't Att'y Gen., for Hon. Michael Medlock, Circuit Judge.