All States › Evidence
Neutral Court Opinion May 10, 2026

(In the Matter of the Adoption of Minor Child) Jacob Little v. Jackson Grant Roberts

── (In the Matter of the Adoption of Minor Child) Jacob Little v. Jackson Grant Roberts ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: May 06, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 275 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-25-278 IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION Opinion Delivered: May 6, 2026 OF MINOR CHILD APPEAL FROM THE BOONE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JACOB LITTLE [NO. 05PR-22-5] APPELLANT HONORABLE JOHNNIE A. V. COPELAND, JUDGE JACKSON GRANT ROBERTS AFFIRMED APPELLEE RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge Jacob Little (“Jacob”) appeals from the final decree of adoption granted in the Boone County Circuit Court on October 22, 2024, in favor of appellee Jackson Grant Roberts (“Jackson”). On appeal, Jacob argues that the circuit court erred in finding that (1) his consent to the adoption was unnecessary; and (2) that the adoption was in the best interest of the minor child (MC). We affirm. I. Background MC was born in October 2014 to Kaitlyn Roberts (“Kaitlyn”) and Jacob. Kaitlyn and Jacob were later married in July 2015. After losing his job in the fall of 2017, Jacob confessed to Kaitlyn that he had been using methamphetamine for several years and had stolen multiple tools and other equipment that Kaitlyn found around the property. Following this confession, Jacob’s erratic behavior escalated: he shot guns outside of Kaitlyn’s and MC’s bedroom windows and sent Kaitlyn a picture of his gun with the text “my friends said to tell you hi” with a middle-finger emoji. Due to Jacob’s escalating behavior, Kaitlyn petitioned the circuit court for a divorce and, separately, for an order of protection. In her petition for an order of protection, Kaitlyn cited Jacob’s “meth usage, suicide threats, carrying multiple weapons, job loss, non-support, stealing, erratic behavior, paranoia, use of tracking devices and cameras, and daily verbal abuse and anger” as the reason for the order. Kaitlyn was initially granted a temporary order of protection that allowed Jacob supervised visitation with MC. From October 26, 2017, to September 25, 2020, Jacob was frequently incarcerated. His incarceration was mainly due to two separate cases that resulted in his pleading guilty to forty-eight mostly drug-related felonies. He had one significant period of release from October 10, 2018, until July 20, 2019. Jacob does not contend that he sought visitation with MC during his period of release. All parties agree that Jacob last saw MC in October 2017 at her third birthday party. Jacob has not provided financial support, nor has he communicated with MC since then. On December 18, 2017, the divorce decree was granted and included the following language: That [Kaitlyn] shall have primary physical custody of the minor child. Because of [Jacob]’s incarceration, there shall be no visitation and no child support. Either party may petition the Court for visitation or support once [Jacob] is no longer in custody. 2 The court entered a final order of protection on February 6, 2018, with an expiration date of January 16, 2023. The final order of protection included the following language: “[Kaitlyn] is awarded custody of [MC] pursuant to the Decree of Divorce filed December 18, 2018. [Jacob] shall have no visitation with [MC].” In December 2018, Kaitlyn began dating Jackson Roberts, and they were married in June 2021. Jackson testified that during this period, he saw MC as his child, he had financially and emotionally provided for MC, and they had a close bond
CourtListener · May 06, 2026
Original link
Share on X Share on Facebook
{# E23 (Nick, ruling section 1 answer 10): quoting a bill or a court opinion works the way quoting a news article works. Select a passage above and the same panel opens: the passage goes to the official you choose, with this document's own address as its source and its own type. #}