Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 550

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION III

No. CV-23-485

TIFFANY BAKER

APPELLANT

V.

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF 

HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR 

CHILD

APPELLEES

Opinion Delivered November 29, 2023

APPEAL FROM THE CLARK COUNTY

CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. 10JV-21-87]

HONORABLE BLAKE BATSON, 

JUDGE

AFFIRMED

KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge

Appellant Tiffany Baker appeals after the Clark County Circuit Court filed an order 

terminating her parental rights to her son, Minor Child 3 (MC3) (DOB 12-29-07).1 

Appellant generally argues on appeal that there was insufficient evidence for the circuit court 

to find that the termination of parental rights was in MC3’s best interest.

2

 More specifically, 

she argues that termination was not in MC3’s best interest because (1) the circuit court found 

 

1Appellant has two other children, Minor Child 1 (MC1) (DOB 03-15-06) and Minor 

Child 2 (MC2) (DOB 02-27-07). MC1 and MC2 entered foster care subsequent to MC3, 

and for reasons that are not clear, their case proceeded under a separate case number. 

However, both cases were heard together at a single termination hearing, but two separate 

termination orders and two separate notices of appeal were subsequently filed.

2This case is the companion to Baker v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2023 

Ark. App. 549, also decided today, in which appellant has appealed the termination of her 

parental rights to her other two children, MC1 and MC2.
2

that MC3 was not likely to be adopted; (2) termination would also sever MC3’s relationship 

with his grandmother “who was a lynchpin in his life”; and (3) termination did not serve the 

purpose of the Juvenile Code but was instead implemented to punish her. We affirm.

I. Relevant Facts

On July 15, 2021, the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition 

for emergency custody and dependency-neglect asking the circuit court to find MC3 

dependent-neglected and to place him in DHS’s custody. In the affidavit attached to the 

petition, DHS stated that MC3 and his siblings, MC1 and MC2, had been living with their 

maternal grandmother, Michelle Sims (formerly Green). Ms. Sims had a guardianship over 

all three children. MC3 was ordered into DHS’s care on July 14, 2021, after a family-inneed-of-services (FINS) court hearing regarding MC3. At that hearing, Ms. Sims had 

explained that MC3 has severe behavioral problems and that she was concerned about her 

safety and the safety of others in the home. Ms. Sims further explained that MC3 had 

physically attacked her, had intentionally tried to look at females while they were getting 

dressed, broke into and entered into properties, and failed to show any remorse for his 

behaviors. As such, Ms. Sims had informed the circuit court that she could not allow MC3 

to remain in her home, and the circuit court exercised an emergency hold on MC3 and 

placed him in foster care.

The circuit court granted the petition, finding that probable cause existed, and an 

agreed probable-cause order was filed on July 20, 2021. Thereafter, an agreed adjudication 

order was filed on October 13, 2021, finding MC3 dependent-neglected. The circuit court 
3

found that appellant is MC3’s biological mother and is his noncustodial parent for purposes 

of the Arkansas Juvenile Code. MC3’s father is deceased. It found that Ms. Sims had 

obtained a guardianship over MC3 at one point, and MC3 was removed from the custody 

of his mother. However, the circuit court noted that Ms. Sims no longer wished to be MC3’s 

guardian. The circuit court found that appellant was not “a fit parent for the purposes of 

custody or visitation because despite receiving service and being notified that the juvenile is 

in foster care, she has not presented herself to the Court to be assessed.” As such, the circuit 

court found that MC3 could not be safely placed in appellant’s custody. The circuit court 

set the goal of the case as relative placement.

A review hearing was held on February 7, 2022, and an order was filed on February 

17, 2022. The circuit court continued the goal of relative placement. The circuit court 

noted that safety concerns prevented trial placement, return of custody, or other placement 

with appellant because appellant was “living with a friend and unable to provide for [MC3].” 

Regarding appellant’s compliance, the circuit court found that appellant had “partly 

complied with the case plan and the orders of the Court.” It explained that appellant had 

begun the “Triple P program” and had been referred for “Intensive Family Services.” It 

ordered appellant to “attend supervised visits with the juvenile; continue to be drug tested; 

continue to allow the Department access to her housing; continue to participate in case plan 

services; maintain safe and stable housing and employment; and participate in therapy and 

other services, to the extent recommended by the Department.”
4

For context, it is important to note that DHS exercised emergency custody of MC1 

and MC2 in the companion case on February 28, 2022, and that DHS had filed a petition 

for ex parte emergency custody and dependency-neglect on March 1, 2022. Although the 

case regarding MC1 and MC2 was separate from the case involving MC3, some issues and 

goals overlapped between the two cases.

After multiple continuances, a permanency-planning hearing regarding MC3 was 

held on August 1, 2022, and an agreed permanency-planning order was filed on August 15, 

2022. The circuit court changed the goal from relative placement to reunification with 

appellant, which aligned with the goal set in the companion case for MC3’s two other 

siblings. However, the circuit court found that appellant was “unfit” and noted that safety 

concerns prevented trial placement, return of custody, or other placement with appellant 

because she lacked housing, employment, and transportation. Regarding appellant’s 

compliance with the case plan and court orders, the circuit court made the following 

findings:

The mother has partly complied with the case plan and the orders of the Court. 

Specifically, the mother has tested negative on a drug screen at the Pulaski County 

office and at a drug screen ordered in court today. The mother is not employed, lacks 

stable housing, and has no transportation. The mother is ordered to participate in 

the services offered by the Department, to communicate her residential address to the 

Department, submit to hair follicle testing and random drug screens, and allow the 

Department access to her home.

A fifteen-month review hearing was held on November 4, 2022, and a written order 

was filed on November 7, 2022. The circuit court continued the goal of reunification and 

ordered DHS to continue to provide appellant services. However, the circuit court noted 
5

that the “compelling reason to continue providing services is to have a full permanency 

planning hearing with the companion case on January 23, 2023.”

DHS thereafter filed a petition for the termination of parental rights on January 13, 

2023, specifically alleging that appellant’s parental rights should be terminated on the basis 

of the statutory grounds of failure to remedy, other subsequent factors, and aggravated 

circumstances. See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3) (Supp. 2023).

A final permanency-planning hearing was held on January 9, 2023, and a written 

order was filed on April 5, 2023. It was in this order that the circuit court changed the goal 

of the case to adoption. The circuit court did order DHS to continue to provide appellant 

reunification services. Regarding appellant’s compliance with the case plan and court orders, 

the circuit court made the following findings:

The mother has not complied with the case plan and the orders of the Court. 

Specifically, the mother testified that she has used methamphetamine since the last 

review. The mother is not employed, lacks stable housing, and has unreliable 

transportation. The mother is ordered to participate in the services offered by the 

Department, to communicate her residential address to the Department, submit to 

hair follicle testing and random drug screens, and allow the Department access to her 

home.

A joint termination hearing was held on April 3, 2023, regarding MC1, MC2, and 

MC3. The circuit court simultaneously heard testimony and oral arguments concerning the 

circumstances and issues regarding all three children. Because the evidence presented at the 

termination hearing is discussed in detail in the companion case, we do not repeat it herein. 

See Baker v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2023 Ark. App. 549.
6

The circuit court filed a written order terminating appellant’s parental rights to MC3 

on April 20, 2023, finding that the statutory grounds of failure to remedy, other subsequent 

factors, and aggravated circumstances supported termination. Regarding MC3’s best 

interest, the circuit court made the following findings relevant to the issues raised on appeal: 

9. The Court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that

termination of the mother Tiffany Baker’s parental rights is in the best interest of the 

juvenile. In making this finding, the circuit court considered all relevant factors, 

including the likelihood that the juvenile would be adopted if the parental rights were 

terminated, and the potential harm, specifically addressing the effect on the health 

and safety of the juvenile, that could be caused by returning the juvenile to the 

mother.

a. As to the juvenile’s adoptability, the Court finds that the juvenile is not 

likely to be adopted, because the juvenile has significant behavioral barriers 

to adoption. However, the Court finds that the juvenile does not wish to 

be adopted, but rather to remain in Department custody, continue to avail 

himself of the Department’s Transitional Youth Services, and to have the 

goal of APPLA once he turns sixteen. Moreover, the Department 

continues to provide mental and behavioral health services to the juvenile, 

which could improve his potential to become adoptable.

b. As to potential harm, the Court finds that the juvenile would likely be 

subjected to harm if returned to the mother because of the mother’s 

ongoing substance abuse and ongoing instability. The mother’s failure to 

engage in the psychological evaluation, failure to engage in counseling after 

she initially told the Department that she would obtain her own 

counseling, and her failure to engage in inpatient drug rehabilitation, in 

conjunction with the juvenile’s significant behavioral issues, would leave 

the juvenile at great risk of harm if placed with the mother. Moreover, the 

mother’s unstable living conditions—she lives with a male friend who has 

not communicated with the Department, and the mother has prevented 

the Department from thoroughly inspecting the home, on the grounds that 

she could only authorize access to the single room that she occupied—

would increase the risk of harm if the juvenile were placed with the mother.
7

10. The Court therefore grants the Department’s petition and terminates all 

parental rights of Tiffany Baker to [MC3], pursuant to section 9-27-341 of the 

Arkansas Code. . . .

This appeal followed.

II. Analysis

Because the issues and arguments raised on appeal are the same as those presented in 

the companion case, which we also hand down today, we find it unnecessary to restate them 

herein. Further, this court’s conclusions are set forth in the companion case and are 

incorporated herein. See Reynolds v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2023 Ark. App. 293. 

Accordingly, we affirm the termination of appellant’s parental rights as to MC3.

Affirmed.

ABRAMSON and WOOD, JJ., agree.

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

Dana McClain, attorney ad litem for minor child.