Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 296

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION III

No. CV-22-811

MARQUITA JOHNSON

APPELLANT

V.

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN 

SERVICES AND MINOR CHILDREN

APPELLEES

Opinion Delivered May 17, 2023

APPEAL FROM THE PHILLIPS COUNTY 

CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. 54JV-21-44]

HONORABLE KATHIE HESS, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge 

Appellant Marquita Johnson appeals the Phillips County Circuit Court’s order entered on 

September 26, 2022, terminating reunification services; granting permanent custody of minor child 

1 (“MC1”), minor child 2 (“MC2”), and minor child 3 (“MC3”) to their father; suspending visitation 

between Johnson and the children; and closing the case. On appeal, Johnson argues there was 

insufficient evidence to support termination of reunification services and awarding custody of the 

children to their father. We affirm. 

On November 18, 2021, the Arkansas Department of Human Services (‘the Department”) 

received a child-abuse-hotline referral concerning Johnson and her children, MC1, MC2, and MC3. 

Following an investigation, the Department exercised a seventy-two-hour hold on the children. On 

November 22, the Department filed a petition for emergency custody and dependency-neglect. In 

an affidavit attached to the petition, family service worker (FSW) Jessica Razor alleged:
2

[Johnson] will not assist [MC1] with her medical needs. [MC1] is a diabetic and uses syringes 

for insulin. [Johnson] is unstable and she has missed [MC1’s] doctor’s appointments with 

Arkansas Children’s Hospital-Diabetic Clinic. It is unknown if [Johnson] is employed. 

[Johnson] refuses to give the Department any information regarding her child’s well-being, 

placement arrangement for her children, nor demographic information for herself or her 

children. [Johnson] was arrested and booked before the interview could be completed. 

[Johnson] is being charged with domestic battery-2nd degree. [MC1] appears to have marks 

on her arms and stomach area from being hit with an extension cord that [MC1] states her 

mother [Johnson] did on 11/18/2021 morning for leaving the blood sugar monitor at home 

and not having it with her at the doctor’s appointment. [MC1] has been suicidal in the past,

in which she told her mother [Johnson] and Dr. Jurhee Freese at Arkansas Children’s Hospital 

on 9/17/21. After assessing for health and safety, the following safety factors were identified 

and were considered in making the decision to remove the juveniles:

 Safety factor 1 Caretaker’s behavior toward child(ren) is violent or out of control.

 Safety factor 7 Caretaker is unwilling or unable to meet the child’s needs for food, 

clothing, shelter, or medical, or mental, health care.

The juvenile was removed from the custody of [Johnson] on November 18, 2021 at 5:22 pm, 

because circumstances and conditions of [Johnson] present an immediate danger to the health 

and physical well-being of the juvenile(s). The following safety assessment factors were 

identified and considered in making the decision to remove the juvenile(s): [Johnson] 

subjected the juveniles to substantial risk of harm by [being] unwilling to meet [MC1’s] 

medical needs and by having out of control behavior towards [MC3], [MC1], and [MC2]. 

[Johnson’s] out of control behavior results in physically abusing the juveniles with an 

extension cord and leaving marks on the skin. The juveniles are fearful of their mother due 

to statements she has made towards them like “[MC1] has a death wish anyway” or [Johnson] 

reports occasionally to her children “she wants to hurt her children since her mom passed 

away.” There were also marks observed on [MC1’s] arms and stomach from physical abuse 

by [Johnson]. [Johnson] has made statements at Arkansas Children’s Hospital-Diabetic Clinic 

towards [MC1] for not keeping up with her insulin injections and blood sugar. Some of the 

statements [Johnson] made towards [MC1] were as follows: “I’m afraid of getting air in the 

syringe and hurting [MC1]” and “she is not going to be the one who gets in trouble for [MC1’s] 

medical issues.” It was also reported from medical staff at Arkansas Children’s Hospital that 

[Johnson] stated on 11/18/21 that “[MC1] has a death wish anyway.” [Johnson] was hostile 

while at Arkansas Children’s Hospital-Diabetic Clinic on 11/18/21 causing her to be arrested 

and charged with domestic battery-2nd degree and she is currently in Pulaski County jail. 

[Johnson] was never drug screened on 11/18/21.
3

The circuit court entered an ex parte order for emergency custody on that same day, placing 

the juveniles in the custody of the Department. In the probable-cause order entered on December 

28, the circuit court found that probable cause existed and continued to exist for the juveniles to 

remain in the Department’s custody. The circuit court noted the existence of a criminal no-contact 

order and modified it to allow “sight and sound” supervised visitation between Johnson and the 

juveniles. Johnson was ordered to submit to a drug-and-alcohol assessment; submit to a psychological 

evaluation; participate in counseling; cooperate with the Department; comply with the case plan and 

court orders; view “The Clock is Ticking” video; remain drug-free and submit to random drug 

screens; participate in and complete parenting classes; provide the Department proof of any 

prescribed medication; obtain and maintain clean, safe, and stable housing with utilities; allow the 

Department access to her home; obtain and maintain stable employment or provide income sufficient 

to support the family; provide the Department with a budget indicating sufficient income and/or 

resources to meet the needs of the family; and keep the Department informed of any change in 

address, contact information, marital status, or employment status. 

An adjudication hearing was held on January 12, 2022. Following the hearing, in an order 

entered on February 18, the circuit court adjudicated MC1, MC2, and MC3 dependent-neglected as 

a result of environmental neglect and inadequate supervision. While the juveniles were ordered to 

remain in the Department’s custody, they were placed with their father, Dale Brewster. The goal of 

the case was established as reunification. The circuit court additionally authorized supervised 

visitation. Johnson was ordered to comply with the previous orders of the court and follow the case 

plan.
4

At the March 16 review hearing, the juveniles were ordered to remain in the custody of the 

Department. The goal of the case continued to be reunification with a concurrent goal of relative 

placement. The Department was found to have made reasonable efforts to provide family services 

and finalize a permanency plan for the juveniles. Johnson was found in compliance with the case plan 

regarding housing and attending counseling appointments. The juveniles were scheduled to begin 

counseling on the day of the hearing. The circuit court accepted the recommendation of the attorney 

ad litem that any increased visitation with the children would be on the advice of the therapist. The 

order noted that, in the home of her father, MC1 “is doing well with her diabetes and her A1C count 

has gone down.”

On August 17, the Department filed a motion to terminate reunification services to Johnson

based on aggravated circumstances; specifically, that there is little likelihood that services to the 

family will result in successful reunification. 

Following the September 14 hearing, the circuit court terminated reunification services to 

Johnson, placed the juveniles in the custody of their father, denied visitation between Johnson and 

the juveniles, and closed the case. Johnson appealed from the termination-of-reunification-services 

order. 

In order to grant a motion for no reunification services, a circuit court must find by clear and 

convincing evidence that the petitioner has proved at least one ground.1 Clear and convincing 

evidence is that degree of proof that will produce in the fact-finder a firm conviction as to the 

allegation sought to be established.2

 

1McHenry v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2014 Ark. App. 443, 439 S.W.3d 724.

2Watkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2021 Ark. App. 55. 
5

On appellate review, appellate courts will not reverse a circuit court’s no-reunificationservices order unless the findings are clearly erroneous.3

 A finding is clearly erroneous when there 

is evidence to support it, but the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and 

firm conviction that a mistake has been made.4 We give due regard to the opportunity of the circuit

court to judge the credibility of witnesses, and in matters involving the welfare of young children, 

we give great weight to the circuit court’s personal observations.5

On appeal, Johnson first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination 

of reunification services. Specifically, she contends, “By failing to offer critical services in the months 

leading up to the hearing, [the Department] did not offer sufficient proof that there was little 

likelihood that continued services would result in reunification.” Johnson contends that family 

therapy was essential for reunification. She acknowledges that during a family-therapy session on 

May 17, “she made a statement that hurt her children.” Finding it to be contrary to the children’s 

best interest, family-therapy sessions with Johnson and the juveniles were discontinued. Johnson

argues that without continued sessions following the incident on May 17, she was unable to 

demonstrate that she could meet her children’s needs and provide them with a safe and stable home. 

Johnson correctly states that the Department halted family-therapy sessions following an 

incident on May 17. During that session, in response to MC1’s statement that she felt unloved by 

her mother, Johnson responded, “If I didn’t love you, I would have snapped your neck while giving 

 

3McHenry, supra.

4Coleman v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 851, 379 S.W.3d 778. 

5McHenry, supra.
6

birth to you.” The juveniles became emotionally upset by Johnson’s statement, and the sessions were 

halted. Johnson contends that without the appropriate services, she did not have a path to help her 

daughter heal. 

The circuit court terminated reunification services to Johnson on the aggravatedcircumstances ground. Under the aggravated-circumstances ground, a circuit court may terminate 

reunification services if there is little likelihood that further services will result in a successful 

reunification.6 This court has held that proof of services is not an element of the aggravatedcircumstances finding.7

 Johnson asserts she “is not arguing that a showing of reasonable efforts was 

required; rather [she] is arguing that the circuit court had to have something upon which to base its 

decision that additional services would not have resulted in reunification.” Even though Johnson

attempts to distinguish her argument from a failure to provide reunification services, we find that it 

is indeed the same argument. Furthermore, Johnson fails to cite any legal authority for her 

contention that without first providing appropriate services, the court cannot fully assess whether 

further services will result in successful reunification. When an appellant does not cite authority or 

make a convincing legal argument, and where it is not apparent without further research that the 

point is well taken, we will affirm.8 

Moreover, the record establishes that the Department did offer services to Johnson, such as 

visitation, a drug-and-alcohol assessment, foster-care services, and counseling. Despite these 

services, Johnson still made inappropriate comments to the children during a therapy session, 

 

6

See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-365(c)(2)(A)(v) (Repl. 2020).

7Thompson v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2022 Ark. App. 478. 

8Cotton v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 455, 422 S.W.3d 130. 
7

Johnson failed to take responsibility for her actions and the effect her actions had on the children, 

Johnson had unresolved criminal charges stemming from the incident that initiated opening the case, 

and the children refused visitation with Johnson for which Johnson blamed the children’s father. 

While the Department provided services to Johnson, she failed to benefit from them in a manner 

sufficient to achieve successful reunification, and there is little likelihood that further services will 

result in successful reunification. 

For Johnson’s next point on appeal, she contends the circuit court erroneously granted 

custody of the juveniles to their father and closed the case. She argues, “As [the Department] failed 

to prove that there was little likelihood that continued services would result in reunification, it was 

premature for the court to change the goal of the case, grant custody to [father] and close the case. 

Because we hold there was sufficient evidence to support the termination of reunification services on 

the aggravated-circumstances ground, appellant’s argument is meritless and need not be addressed. 

Last, Johnson argues that even if the circuit court did not err in terminating reunification 

services, changing the case goal, granting custody of the children to their father, and closing the case, 

she should have been granted visitation with the children. She contends that while visitation may not 

have been appropriate at the time of the termination-of-reunification-services hearing, the court’s 

ruling denying visitation and closing the case was “tantamount to a termination of parental rights.” 

Johnson argues that “by denying any future visitation, the court barred any chance of a future 

relationship between these children and their mother.” She asserts there was a less restrictive option,

such as allowing reasonable visitation upon the recommendation of the children’s therapist. 
8

The issue of visitation lies within the sound discretion of the circuit court, with the primary 

consideration being the best interest of the children.9 Johnson essentially asks this court to reweigh 

the testimony and evidence, which we will not do. Further, Johnson’s contention that the circuit 

court denied her any future visitation with the children is disingenuous. In its order terminating 

reunification services, the circuit court stated, “The Court finds at this time that visitation between 

the mother and the children are terminated based upon her actions.”10 The circuit court’s “at this 

time” statement implies that the suspension of visitation was temporary in nature and not intended 

to serve as a bar to future visitation. 

We affirm the circuit court’s September 26, 2022, “Order Terminating Reunification

Services, Permanency Planning Order, Order of Custody and Case Closing Order.” 

Affirmed.

HIXSON and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

Jennifer Oyler Olson, Arkansas Commission for Parent Counsel, for appellant.

Ellen K. Howard, Ark. Dep’t of Human Services, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.

Dana McClain, attorney ad litem for minor children.

 

9Hudson v. Kyle, 365 Ark. 341, 229 S.W.3d 890 (2006).

10(Emphasis added.)