dissenting. I agree with the majority that the issue in this case is whether the marriage of Jason Powell and Davelynn Lane was valid. However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that it was. Recognizing our court’s ability to affirm the trial court even if we disagree -with its reasoning, Wedin v. Wedin, 57 Ark. App. 203, 944 S.W.2d 847 (1997), I would hold that the trial court’s finding — that the Powell-Davelynn marriage was not valid — was not clearly erroneous and would affirm. Therefore, I dissent.
While the trial court erred in relying on the failure to register the marriage license with the county clerk as a basis for finding the marriage of Powell and Davelynn invalid, our analysis does not end there. Reviewing the case de novo, I note that there was evidence introduced that supports the trial court’s conclusion that the Powell-Davelynn Lane marriage was not valid.
All parties agree that on December 31, 1996, a wedding ceremony was performed between Powell and Davelynn. Several witnesses described the ceremony right down to the cream-colored dress worn by Davelynn. Family and friends were present. However, that is not enough, on its face, to support a conclusion that the parties were lawfully married on that date. In order for the marriage to be valid it must be properly solemnized. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-11-213 (Supp. 2007). There was no evidence that the preacher who performed the ceremony on December 31, 1996, was licensed, with his license recorded, as required by Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-11-214 (Repl. 2002).
In addition to the requirement that a competent officiator solemnize the ceremony, competent parties, who consent to being married, are also required. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-11-101 (Repl. 2002). Section 9-11-101 defines marriage as a civil contract “to which the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting is necessary.” Ark. Code Ann. § 9-11-101. The evidence reflects that Davelynn was under age at the time of the wedding. Moreover, there is nothing in the record to suggest that parental consent was obtained, and by law, it was required. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-11-102 (Supp. 2007). While Davelynn testified that she did not claim a lack of capacity to marry, that is not her determination to make.
In any event, Davelynn’s testimony was that there was never any intent for a valid marriage; that she and Powell were “play acting” and never intended to file the marriage license; that “the preacher never even saw the license”; and that it was a bad decision that she regretted. She eventually filed a paternity action against Powell alleging that the child was born out of wedlock. Powell did not answer, and a default was entered.
Considering all of the evidence, I cannot say that the trial court’s finding that there was no valid marriage between Powell and Davelynn was clearly erroneous. With this conclusion, it is easy to hold that the marriage between Davelynn and Wendell Lane is valid and that Wendell Lane is a step-parent. Since Powell has not contributed to the support of the child for over a year, his consent to the adoption is not necessary. Therefore, I would also affirm the other issues in this case.
Pittman, C.J., and Heffley, J., join in this dissent.