Orning Rickey Seigrist v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children

── Orning Rickey Seigrist v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: April 15, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 231 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-25-716 ORNING RICKEY SEIGRIST Opinion Delivered April 15, 2026 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE LOGAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, V. NORTHERN DISTRICT [NO. 42PJV-24-15] ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR HONORABLE TERRY SULLIVAN, CHILDREN JUDGE APPELLEES AFFIRMED BART F. VIRDEN, Judge Orning Rickey Seigrist appeals the Logan County Circuit Court order terminating his parental rights to his three children. Orning challenges the circuit court’s best-interest finding, arguing that the Arkansas Department of Human Services (Department) did not present evidence or testimony regarding the children’s adoptability, and the court failed to make any alternative finding that the absence of proof made no legal difference. We affirm. I. Relevant Facts On April 21, 2024, the Department filed a petition for dependency-neglect and emergency custody regarding MC1 (age sixteen), MC2 (age fifteen), and MC3 (age twelve). In the affidavit attached to the petition, the Department alleged that Orning was the custodial parent, and the children’s mother, Miranda Seigrist, had supervised visitation at Orning’s discretion. The children were removed from Orning’s custody and placed in the Department’s custody because he was arrested for third-degree domestic battery and endangering the welfare of a minor. Orning had punched MC2 in the face and subsequently fought with the neighbors over the incident. The court found that the immediate removal of the children from Orning’s custody was necessary to protect their health and safety, and the children were adjudicated dependent-neglected. Orning was referred for Department services and provided with a case plan. The goal of the case was reunification. During the case, Orning’s supervised visitation with MC1 and MC3 was suspended due to the children’s dysregulated, high-risk behaviors that followed visitation with their father. Specifically, MC3 had flashbacks and was markedly more aggressive after visitation, and MC1 ran away a couple of times. MC1 also newly reported having been raped multiple times since she was six years old. In the October 31, 2024 review order, the circuit court found that there was “no chance of reunification” at that time because Orning was unemployed and physically unable to care for the children. In the February 25, 2025 review order, the circuit court found that the children still had “a lot of issues” and commended MC1 on her progress. Miranda, who had been out of the children’s lives for years, had made an appearance in the case, and the court ordered the Department to refer her for services. Orning was still unable to care for the children, and the goal of the case remained reunification with a fit parent. 2  The court entered the permanency-planning order on June 18, authorizing the Department to seek termination of Orning’s parental rights to all three children. The Department filed the petition for termination the next day. In the petition, the Department asserted that all three children were totally estranged from Orning. Serious abuse allegations had been made against Orning after the case began, and an investigation by the Arkansas State Police Crimes Against Children Division (CACD) was underway. Little to no visitation between Orning and the children had occurred, and he was still unemployed and unabl