Houston v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.

2022 Ark. App. 326

652 S.W.3d 188

Judrika HOUSTON and Chrystal Martin, Appellants

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

No. CV-21-620

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISION III.

Opinion Delivered September 14, 2022

Jennifer Oyler Olson, Arkansas Commission for Parent Counsel, for separate appellant Judrika Houston.

James & Streit, by: Jonathan R. Streit, for separate appellant Chrystal Martin.

Ellen K. Howard, Jonesboro, Ark. Dep't of Human Services, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.

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

STEPHANIE POTTER BARRETT, Judge

Judrika Houston and Chrystal Martin (collectively "Appellants") separately appeal the Sebastian County Circuit Court Order terminating their parental rights to their children, C.H. and A.H. On appeal, Appellants argue the circuit court erred in finding termination of parental rights was in the children's best interest when a less restrictive alternative to termination, relative placement, was available. We affirm.

I. Relevant Facts

On June 20, 2019, the Arkansas Department of Human Services ("DHS") initiated an investigation of Appellants regarding threat of harm, failure to protect, and inadequate supervision. The investigation followed a domestic disturbance in which Ms. Martin was driving with C.H., A.H., and Mr. Houston in the car. Appellants got into a verbal altercation, and Mr. Houston removed the keys from the ignition causing Ms. Martin to lose control of the vehicle. Mr. Houston ran from the scene but was located and arrested on outstanding warrants and charged with two counts of endangering the welfare of a minor. During the course of the investigation, DHS learned Appellants had been in at least two domestic altercations in the presence of the children, which resulted in the arrest of one or both of them.¹

On June 27, 2019, Ms. Martin refused to allow DHS access to the home, admitted she had used drugs, and stated she would not participate in services without a court order, which resulted in a protective-services case being opened on August 20, 2019. DHS continued to have issues with access to the home. When Mr. Houston was released from jail on July 1, 2019, his bond condition included no contact with Ms. Martin or the children unless approved by DHS. At that time, it was revealed Mr. Houston tested positive for THC while incarcerated. On August 26, 2019, the original investigator went to the home and found Mr. Houston present. Mr. Houston denied having a no-contact order, and Ms. Martin stated she would be moving with the children but would not state where. Following the home visit, a seventy-two-hour hold was placed on the children due to the presence of drugs and domestic violence in the home.

On August 29, 2019, the court entered an emergency order placing custody of C.H. and A.H. with DHS. On September 5, a probable-cause hearing was held wherein the circuit court found probable cause that C.H. and A.H. were dependent-neglected, and the emergency situation that necessitated removal of the children continued such that it was necessary for the children to remain in the custody of DHS until the adjudication hearing.

On October 17, 2019, the circuit court held an adjudication hearing, and Appellants stipulated that the children were dependent-neglected based on neglect due to inadequate supervision. The circuit court set a goal of reunification and ordered Appellants to obtain and maintain stable and appropriate housing, income, and transportation; submit to random drug screens and hair-follicle testing, and if positive, submit to a drug-and-alcohol assessment; visit regularly; and continue in couple's counseling and follow the recommendations of the counselor. During the adjudication hearing, the circuit court found DHS had made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the children from their home.

On February 6, 2020, the circuit court held a review hearing, continued the goal of reunification, and found DHS had made reasonable efforts toward this goal. The circuit court also found Ms. Martin had stable and appropriate housing, was receiving SSI, and had transportation, but she did not have a valid driver's license. Further, Ms. Martin was attending counseling, had visited regularly, and had tested negative on drug screens. As for Mr. Houston, the circuit court found he was currently incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction due to a parole violation. On May 22, 2020, Mr. Houston was arrested for domestic battery following allegations that he dragged Ms. Martin by the hair, struck her, and left a knot on her forehead. Following Mr. Houston's arrest, the circuit court ordered that Appellants have no contact with each other due to the continued violence.

On August 20, 2020, the circuit court held a permanency-planning hearing, continued the goal of reunification as a result of Ms. Martin's compliance, and approved a continued trial home placement with Ms. Martin. Additionally, the circuit court found Mr. Houston was allowed supervised visitation at the discretion of DHS despite its finding that he was not in compliance with the case plan. The circuit court found Mr. Houston did not have housing or income and ordered him to participate in anger-management classes, domestic-violence classes, and counseling—as well as report for drug screens. At that time, the circuit court also continued the no-contact order between Appellants.

On October 8, 2020, the circuit court found Appellants in contempt for violating the no-contact order between them. The circuit court found Appellants had contact with each other on September 11, 2020. On November 19, 2020, the circuit court held a fifteen-month review hearing. Because Ms. Martin was in compliance, the circuit court continued the goal of reunification.

On January 21, 2021, the circuit court held a review hearing. At this hearing, DHS noted it intended to request two home studies for two of the children's aunts, one on the maternal side and one on the paternal side. Additionally, the circuit court changed the goal of the case to relative custody and ordered the parents be sentenced to twenty-four hours in jail for their contempt citation.

On January 28, 2021, the circuit court entered two orders for expedited placement decision. In these orders, the circuit court ordered there be an expediated placement decision for the children concerning their potential placement with out-of-state relatives, Janai Polk and Ciearra Pickett, who resided in Chicago, Illinois.

On February 11, 2021, the circuit court held a review hearing and changed the goal to adoption with a concurrent goal of relative custody. The circuit court found the Appellants were unfit and the children's health and safety could not be protected by Appellants if returned to their care. Additionally, the circuit court found that while Ms. Martin had obtained stable housing and complied with the ordered services, the primary issue was that Appellants could not and would not stay apart. Because of this, the circuit court continued the previous no-contact order.

On May 27, 2021, the circuit court held another review hearing and continued the goal of adoption with a concurrent goal of relative custody. Additionally, it ordered DHS to ensure Appellants’ attorneys had copies of the home studies it had received for the children's aunts, Janai Polk and Ciearra Pickett. Both aunts were deemed not suitable for consideration as a relative placement. On June 1, 2021, DHS received the contact information of Maria Johnson, Mr. Houston's stepmother, via email from Ms. Martin's attorney.

On June 11, 2021, DHS filed a petition to terminate Appellants’ parental rights. On August 12, August 26, and September 10, 2021, the circuit court held a termination hearing and terminated Appellants’ parental rights under the following statutory grounds: (1) the children had lived outside the home of the custodial and noncustodial parents for a period of twelve months, and the parents failed to provide significant material support in accordance with the parents’ means or to maintain meaningful contact with the children; (2) that other factors or issues arose subsequent to the filing of the original petition for dependency-neglect that demonstrate that placement of the children in the custody of the parents is contrary to the children's health, safety, or welfare and that, despite the offer of appropriate family services the parents had manifested the incapacity or indifference to remedy the subsequent issues or factors or rehabilitate the parents’ circumstances that prevent the placement of the children in the custody of the parents; and (3) aggravated circumstances. Additionally, the circuit court found it was in the children's best interest to terminate Appellants’ parental rights on the basis of the children's adoptability and the potential harm they would face if returned to the parents’ custody.

II. Standard of Review

A circuit court's order terminating parental rights must be based upon findings proved by clear and convincing evidence. Ark. Code Ann....