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

2020 Ark. App. 462

609 S.W.3d 668

Jessica SNEED, Appellant

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

No. CV-20-337

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISION I.

Opinion Delivered October 7, 2020

Leah Lanford, Arkansas Commission for Parent Counsel, for appellant.

Andrew Firth, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.

Kimberly Boling Bibb, attorney ad litem for minor children.

BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge

The Arkansas Department of Human Services opened this case in 2018 after Jessica Sneed was arrested on an outstanding warrant for public intoxication and child endangerment. There was no caretaker available for her five children—DS, SM1, LM1, SM2, and SM3—when Jessica was arrested. The Madison County Circuit Court adjudicated the children dependent-neglected for three reasons:

• The children needed extensive dental work that would require surgery;

• The children needed counseling, and they had been living in unsafe conditions with their mother; and

• DHS had been involved with providing services to the family since June 2014.

Jessica partially complied with court orders to submit to random drug screenings, complete a psychological evaluation, maintain stable housing and employment, and demonstrate an ability to protect her children. But the circuit court ultimately terminated Jessica's parental rights; she appeals.

Jessica does not challenge the statutory grounds that the circuit court used to terminate her parental rights. She instead argues that the termination of her rights was not in her children's best interest. Specifically, she says that there was insufficient evidence for the court to conclude that her children were at risk of potential harm if returned to her custody and care. The circuit found by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(A) (Supp. 2019) that it was in the best interest of the children to terminate Jessica's parental rights. It concluded that Jessica had not demonstrated the ability to protect the children and keep them safe from harm; that the potential of harm was "too great" to return custody to her; that she had not resolved the issues that caused the children to come into care; and that it was in the children's best interest to have a safe and permanent home. We hold that the court's decision was not clearly erroneous. See Meredith v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. , 2017 Ark. App. 120, at 3, 513 S.W.3d 909, 911 (explaining our standard of review and the requirement that the circuit court's decision must be based on clear and convincing evidence).

We have reviewed the record anew and will highlight some of the facts that came to light during the termination hearing. After the children had been removed from Jessica's home, a true finding against the oldest child, DS, was entered for sexual abuse of a six-year-old in his foster home. Seven months into the case, Jessica had not participated in weekly drug screens, had tested positive for alcohol, had not maintained stable housing or employment, had not maintained contact with DHS, and had not completed a psychological evaluation. Almost a year into the case, Jessica still was not submitting to weekly drug-and-alcohol screens but had completed a psychological evaluation, and the court noted that she had made "some progress." When the 2019 permanency-planning order was entered, the court found that "Jessica has not obtained employment, has not submitted to random drug and alcohol screens. Jessica's live in fiancé is a registered sex offender." Jessica remained unemployed throughout the case and was still unemployed at the time of the termination hearing.

A DHS caseworker testified that Jessica's contact with the department and participation in the case had been "very sporadic," that she had missed many drug screenings, and that she had tested positive on a few of the screenings in which she participated. The caseworker stated the following about Jessica.

She's not made safe choices for her children whenever she's married a registered sex offender, knowing that was a huge concern for the Department, and basically choosing that relationship over her relationship with her children. Her own daughter has made sexual abuse allegations against [DS]. And those allegations were found true but exempt due to his age by CACD. And mom does not believe that those allegations are legitimate. She thinks that [DS]¹ did not do them. And so that demonstrates to

...