Jurls v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Children

2023 Ark. App. 443

676 S.W.3d 316

Crystal JURLS, Appellant

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

No. CV-23-243

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISION III.

Opinion Delivered October 4, 2023

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

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.

KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge

Appellant Crystal Jurls appeals after the Columbia County Circuit Court filed an order terminating her parental rights to her two children, Minor Child 1 (MC1) (DOB 04-19-18) and Minor Child 2 (MC2) (DOB 08-20-19). Appellant argues on appeal that (1) the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to terminate her parental rights as to MC2; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the statutory grounds relied on by the circuit court; and (3) there was insufficient evidence for the circuit court to find that the termination of parental rights was in the children's best interest. We affirm.

I. Relevant Facts

On April 18, 2022, the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition for emergency custody and dependency-neglect asking the circuit court to find MC1 and MC2 dependent-neglected and to place them in DHS's custody. In the affidavit attached

to the petition, DHS stated that a seventy-two-hour hold was exercised over the children on April 14, 2022. DHS had received a referral regarding the children. It was alleged that the children were dirty, had bites that had become infected, lacked electricity and water in the home, and had been seen outside in the road without supervision. After an investigation, the family-service worker (FSW) saw red marks on MC2's legs and arms. MC2's teacher explained that MC2 would come to school with dirty clothes that smelled like mildew and had dried feces on him. The teacher further explained that the school has had to purchase clothing for the children and would bathe the children at school once or twice a week. Further, MC1 indicated that he was afraid of a man at his home because the man would hit him, his brother, and appellant and that there was no food at home. At the home, the FSW observed that there were piles of clothes on the floor; the refrigerator had a foul odor and had empty jugs inside; and the stove and kitchen counters had an excessive amount of clutter piled on top of them. Appellant admitted that there was no electricity in the home but that she would run an extension cord from her neighbor's home to access power. Although she had running water in the home at the time, there was no hot water. Appellant further refused to take a drug test after the FSW noticed a "pompom cigar wrapper" in the home. The children were removed on the basis of two safety-assessment factors: "Safety factors #7: Caretaker is unwilling or unable to meet the child's need for food, clothing, shelter, and/or medical or mental health care" and "Safety Factor #9: Child's physical living conditions are hazardous and immediately threatening, based on child's age and developmental status."

The circuit court granted the petition, finding that probable cause existed, and a probable-cause order was filed on May 9, 2022. Thereafter, an adjudication and disposition order was filed on June 3, 2022, finding MC1 and MC2 dependent-neglected. The circuit court found that the allegations in the petition were true and correct. It specifically found that the children were unclean at day care and did not have working utilities at home. The circuit court set the goal of the case as reunification with a concurrent goal of adoption and relative placement. Appellant was ordered to follow the case plan, obey court orders, and cooperate with DHS; obtain and maintain stable, clean, adequate, and suitable housing with utilities; obtain and maintain stable employment or otherwise provide adequate income to support the children; complete parenting classes; submit to random drug screens and test negative on all of them; complete a substance abuse assessment and follow recommendations; attend and participate in individual counseling; complete homemaker and budgeting services; and undergo a psychological evaluation.

On August 11, 2022, the circuit court filed a temporary custody order granting Dustin Hamilton, MC2's putative father, custody of MC2. A review hearing was held on August 5, 2022, and the circuit court filed a review order on August 17, 2022. After receiving the results from DNA testing, the circuit court adjudicated Dustin Hamilton to be MC2's legal father. The circuit court found that MC1 should remain in DHS custody and that MC2 should remain in Mr. Hamilton's custody. The circuit court continued the goals of the case. Regarding appellant's compliance, the circuit court made the following findings:

Crystal Jurls has partially complied with the case plan and the orders of the Court. Specifically, not completed her psych eval, and has people leaving in and out of her

home. She recently completed her assessment, has been attending counseling and has missed some visits. Crystal Jurls has not demonstrated progress towards the goal of the case plan.

Another review hearing was held on November 4, 2022, and a written order was filed on November 16, 2022. During that hearing, DHS provided several exhibits at that hearing that were filed in the court record, including a court report, a list of dates on which appellant either refused to take a drug test or tested positive for drugs, and a copy of appellant's psychological evaluation. DHS indicated that appellant had refused several drug tests and tested positive for "Methamphetamine/Amphetamine" on August 16 and August 25, 2022, and for "Methamphetamine" on September 26, 2022. The psychological evaluation stated the following conclusions:

This is Ms. Jurls second time of being evaluated at this office and her oldest son was removed at that time and her current prognosis is guarded. She does not appear capable of taking care of her children, based on the school report, her report of no electricity, no water (was getting it from the neighbor), her drug use with a limited time of sobriety, (she sees no reason to go to 12 step meetings), she lacks transportation, she has a history of problems with the law, is living with two men and a woman (it doesn't appear to be an acceptable environment for children). She is receiving Social Security as she states she has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and Borderline Personality disorder (also supported by testing today) and has not worked since she was 18 when she worked at Walmart. She does not appear to be a healthy or appropriate role model for children, has poor judgment and does not appear capable of providing adequately for them. It is recommended that her parental rights be terminated, and perhaps placing the children with family members as it does not appear to be in the best interest of her children to continue under her care. She claims she only receives $880 a month which does not appear sufficient for her and two children. She also is still at a high probability of substance use disorder based on testing. Returning her children to her would likely be putting them in harm's way as her prognosis is guarded at best.

In its review order, the circuit court found that MC1 should remain in DHS custody and that MC2 should remain in Mr. Hamilton's custody. The circuit court continued the

goals of the case. Regarding appellant's compliance, the circuit court found that appellant only partially complied with the case plan and that she had not demonstrated progress toward the goal of the case plan.

DHS filed a petition for the termination of parental rights on November 15, 2022, specifically alleging that appellant's parental rights should be terminated on the statutory grounds of aggravated circumstances and subsequent factors. See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3) (Supp. 2023). A termination hearing was held on December 16, 2022.

At the beginning of appellant's termination hearing via Zoom, appellant stated that her vehicle was broken down on the side of the road and that she had retained a private attorney to represent her instead of her appointed counsel. The circuit court explained that the attorney she claimed to have retained had not entered a notice of appearance in the case. After further discussion, the circuit court called the attorney whom appellant claimed she had retained, and the circuit court was told that he had not been retained and therefore had not entered an appearance. The termination hearing proceeded with appellant represented by appointed counsel.

Roquayyah Blake, the caseworker assigned to the case, testified regarding the case history as already outlined above. She also testified about appellant's compliance during this case. Ms. Blake testified that appellant had not completed parenting classes; had made only twelve visits and missed seventeen visits with her children since the case had opened; and had failed to consistently maintain a clean and appropriate home. Ms. Blake explained that appellant's home did not have running water during the pendency of this case and that

appellant had even been "cited for stealing water while her water was turned off." The last time she was permitted in the home was on October 26, 2022. At that time, the home was in order. However, Ms. Blake attempted to see the home multiple times after that date, but appellant refused and offered Ms. Blake various excuses.

Appellant completed a psychological evaluation, and Ms. Blake testified regarding the findings of the evaluation as already discussed above. Appellant refused multiple requests for drug screens and tested positive on the dates she did submit to drug screens. Appellant never had a negative drug screen during the pendency of this case. Ms. Blake acknowledged that DHS was seeking termination of appellant's parental rights before the...