Hall v. Ark. Dep't of Hum. Serv.

684 S.W.3d 907

2024 Ark. App. 94

Brooke HALL, Appellant

v.ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES and Minor Children, Appellees

No. CV-23-595

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISION I.

Opinion Delivered February 14, 2024

APPEAL FROM THE MILLER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 46JV-21-77], HONORABLE BRENT HALTOM, JUDGE

Tabitha McNulty, Arkansas Commission for Parent Counsel, for appellant.

Kaylee Wedgeworth, Ark. Dep’t of Human Services, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.

Dana McClain, Little Rock, attorney ad litem for minor children.

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge

₁Brooke Hall appeals the June 14, 2023 order of the Miller County Circuit Court terminating her parental rights to her two children, MC1 and MC2.¹ She argues that the circuit court erred when it failed to consider the effect of the termination-of-parental-rights (TPR) decision on the sibling relationship as a part of its best-interest analysis. She also argues that the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) generally failed to present sufficient evidence that TPR was in the children’s best interest. We affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History

₂On June 16, 2021, DHS exercised emergency custody of Brooke’s two minor children due to allegations of inadequate supervision, drug abuse, and failure to protect as well as domestic violence between both parents. Specifically, Brooke (1) appeared to be under the influence when DHS investigators reported to the home; (2) claimed she did not know that her children were in the home instead of with her mother; and (3) refused to submit to a drug screen. DHS had closed a foster-care case with Brooke just a month prior that had been open between May 2020 and March 2021, with services again provided in May 2021.

On June 18, DHS filed a petition for ex parte emergency custody and dependencyneglect of the children, and on June 22, the circuit court entered an ex parte order for emergency custody. On June 23, the circuit court held a probable-cause hearing wherein it found that probable cause existed for the emergency order to remain in place.

On September 29, the circuit court held an adjudication hearing and made a dependency-neglect finding based on neglect and parental unfitness. The circuit court ordered that the case goal be reunification with a concurrent goal of relative placement. It ordered Brooke to follow the case plan and any recommendations made from those services; to obtain and maintain stable housing and employment; to submit to random drug screens; to remain drug-free; and to regularly visit her children.

On December 15, 2021, and March 2, 2022, the circuit court held review hearings at which it ordered the case plan goal to remain reunification with a concurrent goal of relative placement and that the children remain in the custody of DHS. The circuit court also found Brooke had not complied with the case plan and court orders because she continued to have ₃positive drug screens (even after completing drug treatment at Gateway Recovery); refused to address her drug problem; and had not visited consistently. The circuit court found DHS had made reasonable efforts by providing referrals for services, foster care, visitation, random drug screens, and home visits.

On June 1, the circuit court held a permanency-planning hearing, after which the circuit court continued the goal of reunification and ordered the children to remain in DHS’s custody. The circuit court found that Brooke had complied with the case plan: she had successfully completed an outpatient drug-treatment program; had submitted to random drug screens; and remained drug-free. Additionally, the circuit court found that DHS had made reasonable efforts.

On September 7, the circuit court held another review hearing in which it continued a goal of reunification with a concurrent goal of relative placement and continued custody of the children with DHS—but authorized a transition to overnight visits up to a trial home placement. Again, the circuit court found that DHS had made reasonable efforts.

On January 11, 2023, the circuit court held a second permanency-planning hearing at which it continued the goals of reunification and relative placement. The circuit court specifically found within its resulting order that "[t]here are no safety concerns that prevent trial placement, return of custody, or other placement with the parent." However, the circuit court found Brooke had not complied with the case plan and court orders because she did not have employment; had not submitted to random drug screens; and had violated a ₄protective order between Bradley Chancellor and her. Additionally, the circuit court ordered that visitation again be supervised and found DHS had made reasonable efforts.

On February 6, a month after the January permanency-planning hearing was held but before the resulting order was entered, DHS filed a petition to terminate Brooke’s and Bradley’s parental rights to MC1 and MC2. DHS alleged that TPR was warranted under multiple statutory grounds and alleged that TPR was in the children’s best interest.

On May 17, the circuit court held a hearing on DHS’s TPR petition. Alexis Lampkins, the primary DHS caseworker for the family, testified that the case began after DHS received a call alleging that the children had been "left unattended." She detailed the history of the case and noted that Brooke had completed the services provided by DHS, including a psychological evaluation, a drug-and-alcohol assessment, and outpatient treatment in May 2022. Ms. Lampkins noted that Brooke had two homes during the case and that she had not recently been able to view the home. Ms. Lampkins stated that Brooke had tested positive for drugs in March 2023 and that Brooke had admitted she would have tested positive in April. After the positive drug screens, Ms. Lampkins called an emergency staffing where Brooke disclosed that she had been using drugs. Ms. Lampkins testified that she did not believe that Brooke had "remedied" the cause of the children’s removal due to her recent drug use and her current unemployment. Ms. Lampkins stated that Brooke had not "exhibit[ed] stability" and testified that it was time for the children to have permanency.

Ms. Lampkins detailed that an additional referral had been made that resulted in Brooke’s completing a drug-and-alcohol assessment on March 17, 2023. Although the ₅assessment recommended outpatient treatment, Ms. Lampkins noted that she had advocated for Brooke to receive inpatient treatment because of her recent positive drug screens. Ms. Lampkins explained that Brooke originally had been scheduled to enter rehabilitation on May 3, but her start date had been rescheduled to May 18, which was the day after the TPR hearing.

Ms. Lampkins acknowledged that Brooke worked hard and complied with the case plan. She noted that although visitation did not progress to overnight visits, unsupervised visits had begun during the case. Brooke interacted with her children during the visitation. Ms. Lampkins also testified regarding the children. MC1 was with a relative, and MC2 was in a foster home. The relative was not able to adopt both children, but the children did visit one another. Both placements agreed to allow the children to continue to visit beyond TPR. Ms. Lampkins testified that DHS always looks to relatives for placement and seeks what is in the best interest of the children. She explained that DHS generally looks to place siblings together, but these children maintained their same separate placements throughout the case.

The next witness was Ruthanne Murphy, the DHS adoption specialist. She testified that the children are adoptable and that 249 families were potential matches. Ms. Murphy stated that she believed the children’s current placements were willing to adopt them separately but maintain the sibling relationship.

After DHS rested, Brooke testified, explaining that she had a home where she had lived since April 2022. She stated that a CASA volunteer had recently been to her home and that she did not believe CASA had any issues with it. Although Brooke acknowledged that ₆she had lost her previous job, she testified that she was currently working with her mother cleaning homes. Brooke noted that she had last used drugs two weeks prior to the TPR hearing. She testified that she was willing to go to inpatient drug treatment, noting that she had attempted to go on March 3, 2023, but had been told by the facility they had not received the referral from DHS, so she had to delay reporting until May 18, 2023, the day after the TPR hearing, and the treatment was scheduled to last for three months. Brooke testified that when she visited with her children, they were happy to see her. Brooke expressed concern that if her parental rights were terminated, the children would be separated from one another, which would be detrimental because they "love each other." Brooke stated that she believed it was in their best interest for her to be allowed additional time to complete drug rehabilitation and be reunited with them. Brooke testified that she was committed to getting sober and being there for her children.

The final witness to testify at the hearing was CASA volunteer Kimberly Merrill. She testified that she believed the children’s current placements were "what is best for them." Ms. Merrill also expressed her opinion that the current placements would allow the children to maintain contact with one another. She testified that she believed TPR, even if the children were adopted separately, was in the children’s best interest.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Brooke acknowledged that her drug use was the cause of her issues in the case. She asked for additional time to enter drug treatment and reunify with her children. She believed it was in her children’s best interest to reunify with her and with each other and requested that the petition be denied.

₇The circuit court ruled from the bench that it was granting DHS’s TPR...