Jessica Casey v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Child , 2022 Ark. App. 432 ( 2022 )

Cite as 2022 Ark. App. 432ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CV-22-256
Opinion Delivered October 26, 2022
JESSICA CASEY
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT,
V. TENTH DIVISION
[NO. 60JV-20-304]
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
SERVICES AND MINOR CHILD HONORABLE SHANICE JOHNSON,
APPELLEES JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW
GRANTED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Counsel for appellant Jessica Casey brings this no-merit appeal from the Pulaski County
Circuit Court’s order terminating appellant’s parental rights to her son, MC (minor child) (DOB:
02/27/2020). Pursuant to Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Department of Human Services1 and Arkansas
Supreme Court Rule 6-9(j),2 appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a no-merit brief
contending that there are no meritorious issues that would support an appeal. The clerk of this court
mailed a certified copy of counsel’s brief and motion to be relieved to appellant, informing her of her
right to file pro se points for reversal under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6–9(j)(3), which she has
elected not to do. We affirm the termination order and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
1 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004).
2 (2021).
On February 29, 2020, the Arkansas Department of Human Services (“the Department”)
responded to a report that the minor child tested positive for drugs at birth. The family service
worker’s affidavit stated that she
responded to a report for Garrett’s Law-Newborn-Illegal Substance Exposure. The report
stated that, [MC] was positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and benzos. I met with
the mother Jessica Casey at Baptist Health Hospital in Little Rock, AR. Ms. Casey admitted
to using methamphetamine since she was 15 years old. Ms. Casey stated the only time she
has not used is when she was incarcerated. Ms. Casey stated that she will be going to jail
upon her release from the hospital, due to theft charges and probation revocation. Ms. Casey
stated she had arranged for her cousin Krystal Phillips to care for [MC] prior to delivery,
because she currently has custody of her other 5 children.
MC was removed from appellant’s custody3 on March 4 by the Department because both
appellant and MC tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and benzos. 4 An ex parte
order for emergency custody was entered on March 9, finding that removal from appellant’s custody
was in MC’s best interest and necessary to protect his health and safety. Following the March 12
probable-cause hearing, the court found probable cause existed at the time of removal and probable
cause continued such that it was in MC’s best interest to remain in the Department’s custody. On
April 9, MC was adjudicated dependent-neglected as a result of neglect—Garrett’s Law—and
parental unfitness. In a disposition order entered on April 24, the court set the case goal as
reunification with two concurrent goals: (1) to obtain guardianship with a fit and willing relative or
(2) to obtain a permanent custodian, including permanent custody with a fit and willing relative.
Appellant was ordered to cooperate with the Department; to notify the Department of changes to
3At the time of removal, J.H., Jr. remained at Baptist Health Medical Center due to
respiratory issues and did not have an anticipated discharge date.
4Appellant has an extensive history with the Department due to her drug use, which resulted
in her losing custody of five other children as well as the death of an infant.
2
her contact information and employment status; to notify the Department for transportation
assistance for purposes of achieving the case-plan goals, services, and court orders; to submit to a
psychological evaluation and comply with the recommendations; to attend individual and family
counseling; to take her medications as prescribed by a physician; to abstain from use of illegal drugs,
alcohol, and prescription medications not prescribed to her; to submit to a drug-and-alcohol
assessment and comply with the recommendations; to submit to random drug screens; to complete
parenting classes and demonstrate the ability to appropriately apply the parenting skills; to obtain and
maintain stable housing and stable employment or income; to maintain a clean, safe home; to
demonstrate the ability to keep the juvenile safe; and to attend all medical appointments set up for
the juvenile.
Following the August 20 review hearing, the court entered an order finding the following:
The specific safety concerns that prevent a trial home placement or prevent the juvenile from
being returned to mother or father are: mother is still using illegal substances. On August
18, 2020, mother told Teresa Bunche, the DHS Supervisor who is also the caseworker on
this case, that she is continuing to use meth, and she last used meth the day prior. The reasons
for the juvenile’s removal continue to exist.
The circuit court additionally found that appellant had substantially complied with the case plan and
court orders but had made no progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes of MC’s removal
from her custody. The Department was found to have made reasonable efforts to provide family
services toward the case-plan goal of reunification. Further, the court granted appellant’s request
for in-person visitation with MC.
Another review hearing was held on December 3. The court stated that MC could not be
returned to appellant because she resided in chemical-free living, and he cannot live with her at that
3
placement. The court again found appellant had substantially complied with the case plan and court
orders.
Specifically, she has attended most visits with the juvenile and those visits have been
appropriate and have gone well. She did not show up for some visits and did not give notice.
She did not show up for other visits and did give notice and she was sick for other visits. She
resides in Chemical Free housing where she has been since September 21, 2020, where she
is participating in intensive outpatient treatment, and she has completed six (6) individual
sessions and seventeen (17) group counseling sessions. Her anticipated discharge date is
December 30, 2020. She submitted to a drug screen on August 21, 2020 at RCA, which was
positive for methamphetamine. Seven (7) other drug screens she submitted to at RCA were
negative and the two (2) drug screens she submitted to at DHS were also negative. She
attends AA/NA meetings. She participates in individual counseling and domestic abuse
counseling. She is unemployed and does not have any income. Mother has demonstrated
some progress towards the goals of the case plan. She has made some progress towards
alleviating or mitigating the causes of the juvenile’s removal from the home.
On January 31, 2021, appellant was arrested on multiple charges, including possession of
methamphetamine. The permanency-planning hearing scheduled for February 25 was continued due
to appellant’s incarceration in the Pulaski County Detention Center, and there had not been an order
submitted to allow appellant to attend a Zoom hearing. The permanency-planning hearing was held
on March 4. The circuit court found that appellant partially complied with the case plan and court
orders. The court noted that appellant was visiting with MC prior to her incarceration; however,
“she was caught huffing and was kicked out of her chemical free housing.” The court further observed
that appellant was currently incarcerated and had no stable income or employment. The court found
that appellant had made no progress toward alleviating or eliminating the causes of removal.
Consequently, the goal of the case was changed to adoption or guardianship with a fit and willing
relative. The circuit court additionally provided,
While the Court is authorizing a plan for adoption, it is noted the mother has worked
diligently toward case plan goals and that relapse is part of recovery. The Court also takes
judicial notice of prior court orders of the mother’s substantial progress. The court is setting
4
the TPR hearing for August to give the mother an opportunity to be released, if she is indeed
set to be released in April. It will also give the Department an opportunity to determine
whether or not to get the mother into another treatment program and have the time to make
the service happen.
A review hearing was held on August 9. The review order from that hearing was entered on
November 29. In that order, the circuit court found the case plan was “barely moving towards an
appropriate permanency plan.” The court noted that MC could not be returned to appellant’s
custody because she was incarcerated and awaiting transfer to a larger prison facility where she would
serve the remainder of her five-year sentence. The court stated that appellant had actively
participated in services prior to December 2020 but had failed to make progress since that time.
The Department filed a petition for termination of parental rights on April 15, 2021; that
petition was later dismissed. The Department refiled the termination petition on September 7
following the August 9 review hearing, alleging multiple grounds for termination. Following the
November 29 termination-of-parental-rights hearing, appellant’s parental rights to her son, MC were
terminated. The termination order was entered on February 9, 2022.
This court reviews termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo.5 Grounds for termination
of parental rights must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, which is that degree of proof that
will produce in the finder of fact a firm conviction of the allegation sought to be established. 6 The
appellate inquiry is whether the circuit court’s finding that the disputed fact was proved by clear and
convincing evidence is clearly erroneous.7 A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is
5 Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (2001).
6 Tillman v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 119.
7 Id.5
evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made. 8 In resolving the clearly erroneous question, we give due
regard to the opportunity of the circuit court to judge the credibility of witnesses.9
To terminate parental rights, a circuit court must find by clear and convincing evidence that
termination is in the best interest of the juvenile, taking into consideration (1) the likelihood that the
juvenile will be adopted if the termination petition is granted and (2) the potential harm, specifically
addressing the effect on the health and safety of the child, caused by returning the child to the custody
of the parent.10 The circuit court must also find by clear and convincing evidence that one or more
statutory grounds for termination exists.11 Proof of only one statutory ground is sufficient to
terminate parental rights.12 Termination of parental rights is an extreme remedy and in derogation
of a parent’s natural rights; however, parental rights will not be enforced to the detriment or
destruction of the health and well-being of the child.13 The intent behind the termination-of-
parental-rights statute is to provide permanency in a child’s life when it is not possible to return the
child to the family home because it is contrary to the child’s health, safety, or welfare, and a return
8 Id.9 Id.10 Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(A)(i) & (ii) (Supp. 2021).
11 Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B).
12 Tillman, supra.
13 Id.
6
to the family home cannot be accomplished in a reasonable period of time as viewed from the child’s
perspective.14
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-9(j) allows counsel for an appellant in a termination-of-
parental-rights case to file a no-merit petition and motion to withdraw if, after studying the record
and researching the law, counsel determines that the appellant has no meritorious basis for appeal.
The petition must include an argument section that lists all adverse rulings to the appellant made by
the circuit court on all objections, motions, and requests made by the party at the hearing from which
the appeal arose and explain why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. 15
Counsel contends that there was sufficient evidence presented at the termination hearing to
support the grounds for termination, and any challenge to the circuit court’s finding would be
frivolous. Among the multiple grounds found by the circuit court to support the termination of
appellant’s parental rights was the ground of substantial incarceration. Undisputed evidence was
presented to establish that on June 8, 2021, appellant was sentenced to serve five years’ incarceration.
MC was removed from appellant’s custody immediately following his birth. When the termination
hearing took place, he had already been out of her custody for nearly two years. Due to her prison
sentence, MC was facing another five years in foster care without achieving permanency. Although
appellant provided testimony that she expected to be released within ten months from the
termination hearing date, we have held that it is the length of the prison sentence that controls, not
14 Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(a)(3).
15 Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(j)(1)(A).
7
whether the parent is eligible for an early release through parole. 16 In Hill v. Arkansas Department of
Human Services,17 we held that a three-year prison sentence constituted a substantial period of a two-
year-old’s life and sufficiently supported termination of the parent’s parental rights. Similarly,
appellant’s five-year sentence constitutes a substantial period of not quite two-year-old MC’s life.
The circuit court’s finding based on this incarceration ground for termination is supported by
sufficient evidence.
Counsel further explains that evidence presented at the termination hearing also supports the
circuit court’s best-interest finding. Department caseworker and supervisor Lakisha Tatum testified
that there are no impediments to MC being adopted. A caseworker’s testimony that a child is
adoptable is sufficient to support an adoptability finding. 18 As for potential harm, the circuit court
found that MC’s health and safety would be at risk if returned to appellant due to her incarceration
and inability to care for him. She was serving a five-year prison sentence, thereby making it
impossible for MC to be returned to her custody. We have stated that failure to live a law-abiding
life supports a finding of potential harm.19
In addition to the termination of appellant’s parental rights, counsel identifies one adverse
ruling made at the termination hearing. At the hearing, appellant was asked how many children she
had and how many of those children are in her custody. Counsel objected to the relevance of the
16 See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(viii).
17 2012 Ark. App. 108, 389 S.W.3d 72.
18 Cole v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 121, 543 S.W.3d 540.
19 Blasingame v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2019 Ark. App. 342, 582 S.W.3d 873.
8
questioning. The Department responded, “Your Honor, almost every single appellate opinion in
[dependency-neglect] hearings states that past behavior is a predictor of future harm—potential harm
for children, so I think it’s extremely relevant.” The circuit court overruled the objection. Appellant
went on to testify regarding her other children, none of which she retained custody of, and the death
of an infant—all stemming from her drug addiction. Past behavior is a good indicator of future
behavior.20 Therefore, past behavior is relevant to determining the risk of potential harm. 21
Consequently, the adverse ruling affords no meritorious ground for reversal.22
Having carefully examined the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude that counsel has
complied with the requirements established by the Arkansas Supreme Court for no-merit appeals in
termination cases and that the appeal is wholly without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the
termination of appellant’s parental rights to MC and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
ABRAMSON and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.
Leah Lanford, Arkansas Commission for Parent Counsel, for appellant.
One brief only.
20 King v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 464, 562 S.W.3d 226.
21 Id.22See Taylor v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2020 Ark. App. 227, at 3–4 (recognizing that, even
in termination-of-parental-rights cases, we will not consider arguments made for the first time on
appeal and that parties are bound by the scope of the arguments presented at the trial level).
9