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

2023 Ark. App. 372

675 S.W.3d 158

Kattie LONG and James Long, Appellants

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

No. CV-23-11

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISION II.

Opinion Delivered September 6, 2023

Dusti Standridge, for separate appellant James Long.

Jennifer Oyler Olson, Arkansas Commission for Parent Counsel, for separate appellant Kattie Long.

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

Appellants James Long and Kattie Long (collectively appellants) separately appeal after the Garland County Circuit Court filed an order terminating their parental rights to their two children, Minor Child 1 (MC1) (DOB 03-09-18) and Minor Child 2 (MC2) (DOB 10-23-20). Both parents allege that the circuit court erred in finding that statutory grounds existed to support the termination. James additionally alleges that the circuit court erred in finding that termination was in the children's best interest. We affirm.

I. Relevant Facts

On May 17, 2021, the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition for emergency custody and dependency-neglect of MC1 and MC2. In the affidavit attached to the petition, a family-service worker (FSW) averred that DHS became involved

with appellants on October 24, 2020, when MC2 tested positive for THC at birth. The children remained in the home after the parents agreed to cooperate with DHS and while DHS offered services to the family, including random home visits, drug screens, a drug assessment, and being placed in the home. On March 30, 2021, James appeared to be "under an altered state of mind" and refused to take a drug screen. He had previously admitted methamphetamine use. The affidavit noted that SafeCare Arkansas provided parenting classes and attempted to work with the family on home safety and the environmental issues in the home. However, the family became uncooperative and did not complete the program. At a home visit on May 13, 2021, both parents refused to take a drug screen, and Kattie became irate, cursed, and threw things in the home. She had James lock the children in a room and threatened to have James "come after" the workers. The workers left at that time but returned the same day with law enforcement. One FSW determined that the home was environmentally unsafe because there was trash on the floor and cockroaches on the walls. Old moldy food was within reach of the children. DHS exercised a seventy-two-hour hold to ensure both children's safety. At a medical checkup later that day, head lice and bed bugs were found on the children.

The circuit court granted the petition for emergency custody on May 17, 2021, finding probable cause to believe that the children were dependent-neglected and that it was contrary to the welfare of the children to remain in the parent's custody. The circuit court appointed an attorney ad litem to represent the children and separate attorneys to represent the parents. After a continuance, an agreed probable-cause order was filed on June 8, 2021.

The court found that probable cause existed and continued to exist requiring that the children remain in the custody of DHS.

An agreed adjudication order was subsequently filed on July 28, 2021. The parties stipulated—and the circuit court found—the children dependent-neglected. The circuit court found that the allegations in the petition were true and correct and that the children were at substantial risk of serious harm from neglect and parental unfitness. The circuit court further found that the children "were living in a home that was environmentally unsafe, and the [children] both had head lice and bed bugs that had to be treated with prescription medication. Both parents have a history of substance abuse." The court ordered that the children remain in the custody of DHS, and the goal of the case was set as reunification with a concurrent goal of relative placement. The parents were ordered to do the following: complete a drug-and-alcohol assessment and follow any recommendations; participate in individual therapy; submit to a psychological evaluation and follow any recommendations; submit to random drug and alcohol screens; attend visitation; complete parenting classes; attend all appointments; obtain and maintain a safe, suitable, and appropriate home that is free from illegal substances and other health and safety hazards; obtain and maintain adequate income; request transportation assistance forty-eight hours in advance; cooperate with DHS and CASA; allow DHS and CASA to inspect the home; participate in any service requested by DHS; maintain consistent contact with their children; demonstrate stability and the ability to provide for their children's needs; maintain consistent contact with DHS;

and keep DHS informed of their current address. Appellants did not appeal from this order or its findings.

A review hearing was held on November 17, 2021, and a review order was filed on November 23, 2021. The circuit court found that the parents had only minimally complied with the case plan and continued the same goals. It further found that James had not submitted to a drug screen since at least December 5, 2020, and that the home was still "unfit and not safe" for the children. It found that DHS had made reasonable efforts to provide the family with services and to finalize a permanency plan for the children. Specifically, the circuit court found that DHS had provided, referred, or otherwise offered the following services:

psychological evaluation, individual therapy, drug/alcohol assessment, outpatient drug treatment, random drug screens, home visits, therapeutic foster care placement, transportation, visitation, parenting education, casework services, and worker visits. The Department has also provided, as required, information from the Children's Reporting and Information System, including as to contacts, placements, investigations, home studies, and comprehensive health evaluations that have been entered or received since the last hearing.

A second review hearing was held on March 16, 2022, and a review order was filed on March 25, 2022. The circuit court found that the situation had not changed from the last hearing; that the parents had only minimally complied with the case plan; that James still had not submitted to a drug screen since at least December 5, 2020; that the parents had only minimal contact with the children; and that the parents had been discharged from therapy for their inability or unwillingness to cooperate of work with the therapist. As in the last review order, the circuit court found that DHS had made reasonable efforts to

provide the family with services and to finalize a permanency plan for the children, listing the same services provided, referred, or offered as in the previous review order.

On May 18, 2022, the circuit court held a permanency-planning hearing, and a permanency-planning order was filed on May 27, 2022. The circuit court changed the goal to adoption because of the parents’ noncompliance in the case. Specifically, the circuit court found that the parents’ visitation was inconsistent, that they failed to complete their psychological evaluation, and that they had only made minimal progress to improve the conditions of their home. Additionally, the circuit court found DHS had made reasonable efforts in the case and that DHS specifically "provided, referred, or otherwise offered psychological evaluation, individual and family therapy, drug/alcohol assessment, drug treatment, random drug screens, home visits, foster care placement, family provisional foster care placement, transportation, visitation, parenting education, casework services, assistance with subsidized housing, and worker visits." The circuit court further ordered the parents to comply with the same orders from the previous hearings.

DHS filed a petition for the termination of parental rights on June 9, 2022, alleging several grounds for termination against appellants under Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-341(b)(3)(B) (Supp. 2023), including the failure-to-remedy, failure-to-provide-material-support, and failure-to-maintain-meaningful-contact grounds. A termination hearing began on September 21, 2022, and concluded on September 30, 2022.

At the termination hearing, James Long testified that he had done everything DHS had asked him to do. He admitted that he had not completed rehabilitation but claimed

that he had attempted to call but received no response. He testified that he and Kattie attended nine out of twelve of the most recent visits with the children and missed only if the children were sick or on vacation with the foster parents. He stated that he does not believe he has an issue with drug abuse and does not need to attend rehabilitation. He admitted that he was told that he failed his most recent hair-follicle test. He explained that he had used marijuana and the last time he used methamphetamine was two or three months before the termination hearing. Although James testified that he did not think he needs drug rehabilitation, he testified that he would attend if it would help him "get the kids back."

James testified about an incident when Kattie became upset after being told that she could not accompany him to his recent hair-follicle test. He denied that Kattie was out of control but instead stated that she "does get agitated just like I do." Regarding improvements made to the home, James testified that he had fixed the children's bedroom approximately a month before the hearing and claimed that the house was clean. He admitted that he was unemployed but stated that he is on disability. Several pictures taken during the parents’ visitation with their children and of the home were admitted into evidence.

Joshua Jester, the chief of police for the Mountain Pine Police Department, testified that he...