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

2021 Ark. App. 146

620 S.W.3d 551

Allura RING, Appellant

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

No. CV-20-593

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISION III.

Opinion Delivered: March 31, 2021

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

Callie Corbyn, Ark. Dep't of Human Services, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.

Casey D. Copeland, attorney ad litem for minor child.

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge Appellant Allura Ring appeals from the order of the Sharp County Circuit Court terminating her parental rights to her daughter, M.R. (DOB: 11/26/2018). On appeal, Allura challenges the circuit court's finding that termination was in M.R.’s best interest. We affirm.

This case is inextricably linked to the termination of Allura's parental rights to a previous child, G.R. On December 11, 2017, the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) received a child-abuse-hotline call concerning three-month-old G.R. who presented to the White River Medical Center (WRMC) and was later transported to Arkansas Children's Hospital with severe injuries including brain damage and skull fractures. DHS made a true finding against Carl Ring, the father, for suffocation, bone fracture, and skull fracture.¹ A protection plan was put in place allowing G.R. to remain in Allura's custody under the stipulation that Carl have no contact with G.R. On learning that Allura and G.R. returned to Carl's home, DHS placed a seventy-two-hour hold on G.R. DHS subsequently made a true finding against Allura for failure to protect. Both Allura and Carl stipulated that G.R. was dependent-neglected and voluntarily consented to the termination of their parental rights to G.R. on June 19, 2018.

On November 26, 2018, DHS was again contacted through the child-abuse hotline for threat of harm alleging that Allura had just given birth to M.R. and Carl was present at the hospital and in the room with M.R. Once DHS arrived to assess M.R.’s safety, Allura refused to answer questions without an attorney present. Following Allura's refusal to cooperate and because she allowed contact between M.R. and Carl, a seventy-two-hour hold was placed on M.R. The court entered an emergency-custody order placing M.R. in the custody of DHS, finding that immediate removal from Allura's and Carl's custody was in M.R.’s best interest and necessary to protect her health, safety, and welfare. The court further found that because Allura's and Carl's parental rights to a previous child had been terminated due to injuries caused by Carl, DHS was deemed to have made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the child from the home.

A probable-cause order was entered on December 7 with the court finding that probable cause existed to continue M.R. in the custody of DHS. Allura was ordered to follow the case plan; cooperate with DHS; obey orders of the court; maintain weekly contact with DHS; keep DHS informed of current address and phone numbers; inform DHS of any changes in contact information; obtain and maintain clean, safe, and stable housing with utilities; allow DHS access to the home for monitoring purposes; obtain and maintain stable employment; watch "The Clock is Ticking" video; participate in and complete parenting classes; and remain drug-free and submit to random drug screens. Allura was granted supervised visitation at the discretion of DHS; however, the court noted, "[I]f mother is to be considered for reunification she must have separate home from Carl Ring."

At the July 18, 2019 adjudication hearing,² Allura testified that she believed Carl did not harm G.R. and that G.R.’s injuries were the result of an accident. M.R. was adjudicated dependent-neglected as a result of neglect or parental unfitness.³ The goal of the case was set as reunification with a concurrent plan of adoption and relative custody/guardianship. Among other things, Allura was ordered to live separately from Carl. The court specifically stated, "Nothing less can remedy the issues which prevented removal." The circuit court declined to order a home study on the paternal grandparents, Angela and Ricky Ring, in light of the uncontroverted testimony of family service worker (FSW) Kim Lavespere that they live on the same property as Carl and Allura and that Angela has made statements that she also does not believe Carl harmed M.R.’s sibling, G.R.⁴

A permanency-planning order was entered on January 29, 2020. In the order, the circuit court noted that Allura still did not believe Carl intentionally harmed G.R.; despite G.R.’s extensive brain injury and skull fractures, Allura believed it was an accident. The court further noted Allura admitted in testimony that Carl is a danger to M.R., yet she remains in a relationship with him. As a result, the circuit court found by clear and convincing evidence that Carl and Allura are unfit and that it "doesn't see any chance of reunification." The goal of the case was set as guardianship or adoption with a fit and willing relative. M.R. was placed with Wendy Holland, G.R.’s adoptive parent. DHS filed a petition for guardianship with Holland. However, in a review and guardianship hearing before the court on February 25, Holland indicated that she no longer wanted to proceed with the guardianship petition. Consequently, it was dismissed without prejudice, and M.R. was moved to another foster home.

DHS filed a second amended petition for termination of parental rights on May 28, alleging multiple statutory grounds.⁵ DHS further argued that termination was in M.R.’s best interest because she is adoptable and would be at risk of harm if returned to the custody of either parent due to Carl's incarceration and Allura's poor judgment as a parent.

The termination hearing was held on June 10. The court heard testimony from the following witnesses: Allura, FSW Lavespere, Dr. George DeRoeck (licensed psychologist), Jo Davis (CASA advocate), and Angela Ring. The court also received a number of exhibits including certified pleadings pertaining to G.R. and M.R., Carl's sentencing order, a court report, a CASA report, and a psychological evaluation prepared by Dr. DeRoeck.

On July 22, the circuit court entered an order terminating Allura's parental rights on the following statutory grounds:⁶ (1) life-endangering abuse;⁷ (2) subsequent factors;⁸ and (3) aggravated circumstances.⁹ The court found Allura's testimony not credible and stated that she had been "splitting hairs" and "playing fast and loose." In addition to grounds, the court found it was in M.R.’s best interest to terminate parental rights. Allura now appeals.

This court reviews termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo.¹⁰ 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.¹¹ The appellate inquiry is whether the circuit court's finding that the disputed fact was proved by clear and convincing evidence is clearly erroneous.¹² A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is 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.¹³ In resolving the clearly erroneous question, we give due regard to the opportunity of the circuit court to judge the credibility of witnesses.¹⁴

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.¹⁵ The circuit court must also find by clear and convincing evidence that one or more statutory grounds for termination exist.¹⁶ Proof of only one statutory ground is sufficient to terminate parental rights.¹⁷ 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.¹⁸ 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 to the family home cannot be accomplished in a reasonable period of time as viewed from the child's perspective.¹⁹

On appeal, Allura does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the statutory grounds for termination of her parental rights. She argues only that the circuit court erred in finding that termination was in the best interest of her child. Even within Allura's best-interest argument, she does not challenge the circuit court's finding regarding adoptability. Instead, she argues (1) insufficient evidence supported the potential-harm factor of the best-interest analysis, and (2) termination was not in M.R.’s best interest because there was a less restrictive alternative. Because she has not challenged the circuit court's decision as to the grounds for termination or adoptability, we need not address them on appeal.²⁰

Allura first argues that the circuit court's finding that M.R. would be at risk of potential harm if returned to her custody is supported by insufficient evidence. She contends that although she initially struggled with separating from Carl due to her Christian beliefs and values regarding divorce, she finally took the necessary steps to reunify with M.R. Allura also asserts that despite her use of the word "accident" to describe what happened to G.R., she "readily accepted" that Carl was responsible for G.R.’s injuries. Allura relies on a psychological evaluation in which it was noted that she had "a number of...