Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 564

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS 

DIVISION I 

No. CV-16-690 

LARICHIA CANADA

APPELLANT

V.

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN 

SERVICES and MINOR CHILDREN

APPELLEES

Opinion Delivered: November 30, 2016

APPEAL FROM THE OUACHITA

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. 52JV-15-28]

HONORABLE DAVID W. TALLEY, 

JR., JUDGE

AFFIRMED

RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge

Appellant Larichia Canada (Larichia) appeals from the circuit court’s decision to 

award permanent custody of her three minor children, H.A., B.C., and M.C., to their 

respective grandparents and to close the case. On appeal, she argues that the decision was 

clearly erroneous. For the following reasons, we affirm. 

 On February 13, 2015, the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a 

petition for emergency custody and dependency-neglect in regard to Larichia’s three 

children. DHS first became involved with the family after H.A. reported to the Camden 

Police Department that her stepfather, Brett Canada, Sr. (Brett), had been using 

methamphetamine and had been sexually abusive by masturbating in front of her. Brett’s 

two children, M.C. and B.C., along with H.A., were then all removed from the home. 

H.A. was placed in the temporary custody of her maternal grandmother, Marilyn Palmer, 
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 564

2 

and M.C. and B.C. were placed in the temporary custody of their paternal grandmother, 

Karen Canada. 

 The circuit court ultimately adjudicated the juveniles dependent-neglected, 

specifically finding that H.A. had been sexually abused by her stepfather and that her mother 

had failed to protect her. Larichia continued her relationship with Brett and did not remove 

the children from exposure to him even after she became aware that he had exposed himself 

and masturbated in front of H.A. Larichia was ordered to obtain and maintain suitable 

housing and adequate income, to complete a list of services, including parenting classes, 

random drug screens, a psychological evaluation, and individual counseling, and to have no 

contact with Brett. 

 On July 15, 2015, the circuit court held a review hearing. In its order, the court 

indicated that Larichia did not yet have adequate housing or income but that she had 

completed the parenting classes. The order also noted that she had failed to appear for her 

drug assessment. The court held a second review hearing on October 7, 2015; by that time, 

Larichia had undergone a psychological evaluation as ordered. On December 2, 2015, the 

court held a third review hearing, and the case was set for a permanency-planning hearing 

on February 3, 2016.1

 

 At the March 2 hearing, Shannell Robbins, the supervisor for Ouachita County DHS 

Division of Children and Family Services (DCFS), and Bridgette Patterson, a former 

caseworker with DCFS who had been assigned to the Canada case, both testified. On May 

 

1As Larichia notes in her brief, for reasons that are not clear from the record, the 

permanency-planning hearing did not take place until March 2, 2016. 
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 564

3 

20, 2016, the circuit court entered a permanency-planning order finding that it was in the 

best interest of B.C. and M.C. to grant permanent custody to Karen Canada and that it was 

in the best interest of H.A. to grant permanent custody to Marilyn Palmer. 

 In its May 20 order, the circuit court found that DHS had made reasonable efforts 

and that Larichia had not complied with the case plan and court orders. The court 

specifically found that Larichia’s lack of compliance was due to her contact with Brett, her 

failure to follow court orders, lack of evidence showing she had a suitable home, her attempt 

to alter a drug screen in November 2015, her failure to comply with counseling, and the 

lack of communication between DHS and her for the past thirty days. The court specifically 

noted that it “cannot see Laricha [sic] Canada changing her pattern of non-compliance.” 

The court awarded Larichia supervised visitation with her three children, and it awarded 

Brett supervised visitation with his sons, M.C. and B.C. Brett was ordered to have no 

contact with H.A., and the case was closed. 

The burden of proof in dependency-neglect proceedings, including permanencyplanning hearings, is by a preponderance of the evidence. Anderson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human 

Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 522, 385 S.W.3d 367 (citing Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-325(h)(2)(B)). 

The standard of review is de novo, but we, giving due deference to the trial court’s superior 

position to observe the parties and judge the credibility of the witnesses, will not reverse the 

trial court’s ruling in a dependency-neglect case unless the ruling was clearly erroneous or 

clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Churchill v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 

2012 Ark. App. 530, 423 S.W.3d 637. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there 

is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that 
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 564

4 

a mistake has been made. Id. Deference to the trial court is even greater in cases involving 

child custody, as a heavier burden is placed on the circuit judge to utilize to the fullest extent 

his or her powers of perception in evaluating the witnesses, their testimony, and the best 

interest of the children. Culclager-Haynes v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App 518. 

 At the permanency-planning hearing, DHS employees testified that Larichia had 

failed to maintain contact with them since the last court date and had not responded to the 

missed-visits notes. She had not been drug screened, and because of the loss of contact, DHS 

could not confirm that she was employed. Larichia did not testify, but the uncontroverted 

testimony established that she was not in compliance with court orders. 

 Moreover, caseworker Bridgette Patterson testified that on December 16, 2015, she 

observed Larichia and Brett together in a vehicle at Karen Canada’s home—where M.C. 

and B.C. had been placed. This contact with Brett several months into the case, as well as 

Larichia’s failure to comply with orders and inadequate contact with DHS, was a sufficient 

basis for the court to conclude that returning any or all of her three children to her custody 

would not be safe for them. Our state’s permanency-planning statute requires the court to 

select a goal based on the best interest, health, and safety of the juvenile. Ark. Code Ann. § 

9-27-338(c). In the instant case, the circuit court did just that by granting permanent custody 

of H.A. to Marilyn Palmer and by placing M.C. and B.C. in the permanent custody of 

Karen Canada. See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-338(c)(6) (Repl. 2015). 

 We are not left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made here. 

We cannot say that the circuit court’s adjudication was clearly erroneous or clearly against 

the preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm. 
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 564

5 

 Affirmed. 

 VAUGHT and BROWN, JJ., agree. 

Leah Lanford, Ark. Pub. Defender Comm’n, for appellant. 

Mary Goff, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee. 

Chrestman Group, PLLC, by: Keith L. Chrestman, attorney ad litem for minor 

children.