Case Title: Crawford v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-10-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
Tommy CRAWFORD v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES

97-241                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                Opinion delivered October 9, 1997


1.   Parent & child -- termination of parental rights -- extreme
     remedy. -- Termination of parental rights is an extreme remedy
     and in derogation of the natural rights of the parents;
     parental rights, however, will not be enforced to the
     detriment or destruction of the health and well being of the
     child.

2.   Parent & child -- termination of parental rights -- factors on
     review. -- The facts warranting termination of parental rights
     must be proved by clear and convincing evidence; in reviewing
     the trial court's evaluation of the evidence, the supreme
     court will not reverse unless the court's finding of clear and
     convincing evidence is clearly erroneous; clear and convincing
     evidence is that degree of proof which will produce in the
     factfinder a firm conviction regarding the allegation sought
     to be established; the supreme court will defer to the trial
     court's evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses. 

3.   Parent & child -- termination of parental rights --
     imprisonment of parent not conclusive on issue of termination.
     -- Although imprisonment imposes an unusual impediment to a
     normal parental relationship, it is not conclusive on the
     termination issue. 
4.   Parent & child -- termination of parental rights -- appellant
     lived apart from sons for twelve months -- appellant neither
     contacted nor supported sons -- termination of parental rights
     affirmed. -- Where the chancery court appropriately found
     clear and convincing evidence that the two sons lived apart
     from appellant for twelve months and that he failed to provide
     monetary support for them or to make sufficient contact with
     them, the termination of parental rights was affirmed.


     Appeal from Benton Chancery Court; Terry Crabtree, Chancellor;
affirmed.
     Clark Law Firm, by:  Jim Clark, for appellant.
     Office of Chief Counsel, by:  Johnny E. Gross, for appellee.

     Robert L. Brown, Justice.
     This case arises out of the court-ordered termination of the
parental rights of appellant Tommy Crawford.  The record contains
almost three and a half years of matters before the chancery court,
juvenile division, and other agencies following the original call
to law enforcement officers caused by a domestic disturbance at
Crawford's home in January of 1993.  At that time, Crawford was
living with his girlfriend, Mary Cross, who was still married to
Bobby Cross.  Also living in the house were four minor children. 
Two of the children, Tequilla Cross and Melissa Cross, were the
natural children of Mary Cross and Bobby Cross.  The other two
children, Justin Crawford (now age 9) and James Crawford (now age
7), were the biological children of Mary Cross and Crawford.  The
parental rights of Bobby Cross, Mary Cross, and Tommy Crawford were
terminated with respect to all four children.  This appeal,
however, concerns only the termination of the parental rights of
Tommy Crawford with respect to James and Justin Crawford.  We
affirm the order of termination.
     On January 30, 1993, the Benton County Sheriff's Office
responded to a report of domestic violence at the home of Crawford
and Mary Cross.  The subsequent investigation resulted in two
proceedings.  The first was a criminal proceeding which resulted in
a plea of guilty by Crawford to Violation of a Minor in the First
Degree, a class C felony.  The victim of this offense was Mary
Cross's daughter, Tequilla Cross.  Crawford was sentenced to ten
years in prison with five years suspended.
     The second proceeding was in chancery court, juvenile
division, and concerned placement of the four children in the care
of appellee Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) because of
allegations of abuse and allegations that the children were
dependent-neglected.  On February 22, 1993, DHS filed a petition
for emergency custody, following which the two daughters, Melissa
and Tequilla Cross, were removed from the home of Mary Cross.  The
two boys, James and Justin, remained with their mother.  At the
adjudication hearing held on March 30, 1993, Tequilla Cross
testified about the circumstances at the home before she was
removed from the home and placed in foster care.  She testified
that Mary Cross and Crawford, as well as their friends, drank
alcohol daily and regularly smoked marijuana, all of which took
place in front of the children.
     After the initial disturbance and allegations of sexual abuse
on January 30, 1993, Crawford did not reside with the children or
Mary Cross.  On May 16, 1993, a restraining order was issued
enjoining Crawford from having any contact with the children or
with Mary Cross.  In September of 1993, DHS established a case
plan, with the stated goal being reunification of the family.  An
adjudication order was entered on November 23, 1993, wherein the
two boys, James and Justin, were found to be dependent-neglected,
following a stipulation by counsel to the same effect made on May
13, 1993.
     Following a hearing on December 7, 1993, Crawford was allowed
visitation with his sons for one hour a week under supervision of
DHS.  He was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $32.00
per week and to pay half of the boys' medical bills.  The chancery
court later raised the amount of child support to $35.00 a week on
August 11, 1994.  Crawford participated sporadically in supervised
visitation with his sons for almost a year while the boys were
still living with Mary Cross.  On April 1, 1994, Justin and James
Crawford were ordered placed in foster care along with their half-
sisters, Melissa and Tequila Cross.
     According to DHS reports, Crawford stopped scheduling visits
with his sons and had no contact with them from November of 1994 to
April 28, 1995.  In addition, he never paid the court-ordered child
support.  Crawford, in his own testimony, admitted that he was
aware of the chancery court's order to pay child support, but he
did not pay it.  He said that he bought his boys clothes instead. 
The DHS reports reflect that Crawford and Mary Cross failed to make
sufficient efforts to improve their condition and to establish a
home for the children.
     Crawford began serving his prison term in May of 1995 for the
sexual abuse of Tequilla.  He was in prison for over a year before
the final hearing on termination of his parental rights, which was
held on July 11 and 12, 1996.  During that time, he wrote a total
of three letters to his children.  He refused to attend counseling
for sexual offenders while in prison and continued to deny
molesting Tequilla in spite of his guilty plea.  He claimed to have
mistaken Tequilla for Mary Cross, while he was in a drunken state.
     On August 16, 1996, an order terminating the parental rights
of Mary Cross, Bobby Cross, and Tommy Crawford was issued by the
chancery court.  The court found that DHS had proven by clear and
convincing evidence that the children had been residing outside the
home for more than one year and that, despite meaningful efforts by
DHS to rehabilitate the home and correct the conditions which
caused removal, the conditions had not been remedied.  The court
further found that DHS had proven by clear and convincing evidence
that Crawford had failed to provide significant material support to
his sons or to maintain meaningful contact with them.
     Crawford argues on appeal that there were insufficient efforts
by DHS to rehabilitate him and that the evidence in this case was
not clear and convincing.  Our caselaw has established that
termination of parental rights is an extreme remedy and in
derogation of the natural rights of the parents.  Anderson v.
Douglas, 310 Ark. 633,