the court's decision to grant the Bartons' motion to dismiss the Bankses' petition was an appropriate remedy. Pursuant to the clear language of subsection 214(d), it was. The statute states that "[i]f the requirements for a decree under subsection (c) of this section have not been met, the court shall dismiss the petition." We have previously affirmed the dismissal of a biological relative's petition for adoption based on the petitioner's failure to obtain proper consent from DHS. In re Adoption of K.M., 2015 Ark. App. 448, at 6, 469 S.W.3d at 392; see also In re Adoption of J.J., 2014 Ark. App. 659, at 3; Cowan v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 576, at 16, 424 S.W.3d 318, 327. The court's decision was in keeping with the relevant statutes, was supported by unambiguous precedent, and was not clearly erroneous. We affirm the circuit court’s dismissal of the Bankses' adoption petition.
The Bankses next challenge the court's final decree of adoption granting the Bartons' petition to adopt P.S. Before we can address the merits of the Bankses' arguments, we must address an argument raised by P.S., through her appointed counsel, that the Bankses lack standing to challenge the Bartons' adoption of P.S. Arkansas Civil Practice and Procedure describes the issues as such: "As a threshold matter, the appellant must have standing to appeal. This is not a problem in most cases. If the appellant was a party to the action in the trial court and aggrieved by the judgment, the standing requirement is satisfied." David Newbern, John J. Watkins, Brandon J. Harrison, and D.P. Marshall, Jr., Arkansas Civil Practice and Procedure § 40:1 (5th ed., 2011) (citing Springdale School Dist. No. 50 v. The Evans Law Firm, P.A., 360 Ark. 279, 200 S.W.3d 917 (2005); Forrest Const., Inc. v. Milam, 345 Ark. 1, 43 S.W.3d 140 (2001); Sebastian Lake Public Utility Co., Inc. v. Sebastian Lake Realty, 325 Ark. 85, 923 S.W.2d 860 (1996)). P.S. acknowledges this general rule but argues that whether a person has
20
