Page:Canerday-Banks v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 523.pdf/11

 The court took the matter under advisement. On September 4, 2017, it issued a final decree of adoption granting the Bartons' petition to adopt P.S. The order found that all statutory requirements had been met and that it is in P.S.'s best interest to be adopted by the Bartons. The court also found that DHS was unreasonably withholding consent to the Bartons' adoption petition. On September 18, the court issued a written order dismissing with prejudice the Bankses' petition to adopt P.S. The order stated that the consent form executed by DHS in favor of the Bankses was invalid because it failed to comply with Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-9-202, specifically that the statutorily required waiting period for withdrawal of consent had neither expired nor been waived. This timely appeal followed.

Before we turn to the merits of this case, we must address several motions filed by the parties on appeal. On December 4, 2017, the Bankses filed a motion with this court seeking clarification as to whether this case is governed by Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Rule 6-9 (2017), stating that the circuit court and the clerk of this court treated the case as such. Rule 6-9 enumerates the types of orders from which an appeal may be taken in dependency-neglect cases and provides for an expedited appeal process for those matters. The Bankses argue that this appeal should not be governed by Rule 6-9 because, although it originates from a dependency-neglect case, the appeal stems solely from post-termination adoption proceedings. We agree. The types of orders enumerated in Rule 6-9 do not contemplate adoption proceedings. Moreover, Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-9-216(a), entitled "Appeal and Validation of Adoption Decree," mandates that "[a]n appeal from any final order or decree rendered under this subchapter may be taken in the manner