Cite as 2022 Ark. App. 79

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION III

No. CV-21-449

SONYA CORE

APPELLANT

V.

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN 

SERVICES AND MINOR CHILDREN 

APPELLEES

Opinion Delivered February 16, 2022

APPEAL FROM THE LOGAN

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,

NORTHERN DISTRICT

[NO. 42PJV-18-30]

HONORABLE TERRY SULLIVAN,

JUDGE

AFFIRMED

MIKE MURPHY, Judge

Appellant Sonya Core appeals from the Logan County Circuit Court’s termination 

of her parental rights to her children, K.E. (DOB: 06-04-2008), M.F. (DOB: 10-26-2009), 

E.E. (08-29-2017), and H.C. (DOB: 11-18-2019). On appeal, Sonya argues that the 

termination order was not supported by sufficient evidence. She challenges only the circuit 

court’s best-interest finding.1 We affirm.

On November 24, 2018, the Arkansas Department of Human Services 

(“Department”) exercised an emergency hold on E.E. and filed a petition for emergency 

custody and dependency-neglect. The affidavit supporting the petition alleged that the 

 

1The circuit court also terminated the parental rights of E.E.’s father after he signed 

a consent, but the parental rights of the other fathers were not terminated. This appeal 

pertains only to Sonya. 
2

Department received a report that Sonya and her then boyfriend Donnie Core were in a 

physical altercation, which resulted in their arrest for domestic violence and endangering the 

welfare of a minor. The Department noted that it had a current investigation and an 

extensive history with the family: Sonya’s parental rights to E.E.’s siblings had been 

terminated in 2013. Originally, E.E. was placed with her maternal grandmother, but after 

the Department discovered the grandmother’s true finding for abandonment, they removed 

E.E. and placed her in foster care.

The circuit court entered an ex parte order of emergency custody, and upon 

conducting a probable-cause hearing, it found that probable cause existed for E.E. to remain 

in the Department’s custody. E.E. was adjudicated dependent-neglected on February 6, 2019, 

due to inadequate supervision and parental unfitness. The circuit court established a goal of 

reunification and ordered Sonya to comply with the standard welfare orders of the 

Department.

A review hearing was held on May 15, 2019, and Sonya was found not in compliance 

with the case plan and court orders. Another review hearing was held on August 7. The order 

from that hearing indicated that she and Donnie Core had recently married despite her

previously having a no-contact order against him. 

On December 4, 2019, at the permanency-planning hearing, the court kept the goal 

of reunification because Sonya had been “significantly and substantially” complying with the 
3

case plan and court orders. The order noted that Sonya recently had a baby (H.C.),2and the 

circuit court gave the Department the discretion to start a trial home placement of E.E. with 

Sonya.

At the fifteen-month review hearing on March 4, 2020, the court found that the trial 

home placement was going well and that E.E. should be placed in Sonya’s custody because 

Sonya was no longer unfit and could protect E.E.’s health and safety. The next hearing was 

continued since Sonya was in residential drug treatment; both E.E. and H.C. were placed 

there with her. At the September review hearing, the court noted that Sonya had two other 

children living with her and that she is “overwhelmed.” It continued the goal of reunification 

and ordered that Sonya continue complying with the directives of the Department and 

orders of the court.

On October 22, 2020, the Department filed a petition for emergency custody and 

dependency-neglect regarding two siblings of E.E.—K.E. and H.C. The petition did not ask 

that K.E. or H.C. be placed in the custody of the Department but asked that a hearing be 

held on the petition. On November 4, the circuit court ordered that Core not be in the 

home where E.E. resided with Sonya. H.C.’s natural father, Richard West, moved to 

intervene in the case on November 10. On November 12, the Department filed a petition 

for emergency custody and dependency-neglect as to H.C. after taking a seventy-two-hour 

hold on her on November 9. The same day, the Department moved for ex parte emergency 

 

2H.C.’s father was later identified as Richard West even though Sonya was married 

to Core at the time. 
4

change of custody as to E.E. In an affidavit attached to both pleadings, a family service worker 

averred that she had arrived at Sonya’s home, found Core present, and when drug tested, 

Sonya was positive for methamphetamine. The affidavit mentioned that K.E. was also in 

Sonya’s home when E.E. and H.C. were removed, but she was not named in the petition for 

emergency custody. On November 13, an order of emergency change of custody regarding 

E.E. and an ex parte order for emergency custody as to H.C. were both entered. 

The circuit court adjudicated K.E. and H.C. dependent-neglected in an adjudication 

and permanency-planning hearing on December 2, on the basis of Sonya’s stipulation to the 

allegations of parental unfitness and substance abuse. The court found that K.E.’s father, 

Leonard Fulmer, was a fit parent and ordered that K.E. remain in his custody. The court 

maintained reunification as the goal of the case. The court also found “should genetic testing 

results show that Richard West is the biological father of the juvenile [H.C.], he shall be 

allowed to have visitation with the juvenile, upon the discretion of the Department.” 

However, on March 12, 2021, the circuit court entered an ex parte order for emergency 

custody of K.E. and another sibling, M.F., directing that these two children be removed from 

the custody of their father, Leonard Fulmer, and be placed in the Department’s custody after 

they disclosed “sexual abuse and drug use” in Fulmer’s home. A probable-cause and review 

hearing was held on March 17. Sonya was found to be noncompliant and was ordered to 

have no visitation with any of the juveniles.

The termination hearing was held on May 5. Sonya testified first but became 

emotional and decided to stop testifying and left the courtroom. Brandy Ezell, the family 
5

service worker, testified that Sonya never corrected the conditions that caused the removal 

of E.E. She testified that Sonya told her that she last used methamphetamine in March 2021,

two months before the termination hearing. Ezell did not believe Sonya had the ability to 

maintain sobriety. Ezell testified that the prior termination of Sonya’s parental rights had 

been to a daughter and a son and that Fulmer was the father of her son in that case. Fulmer 

also had his rights terminated in 2013. Ezell testified that all four children are adoptable. 

Although she was not recommending the termination of the parental rights of the known 

fathers, she was still recommending Sonya’s rights be terminated as to all four children. The 

court terminated Sonya’s parental rights, and this appeal followed.

We review termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo. Heath v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum.

Servs., 2019 Ark. App. 255, at 5–6, 576 S.W.3d 86, 88–89. We review for clear error, and a 

finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing 

court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has 

been made. Id. A court may order termination of parental rights if it finds clear and 

convincing evidence to support one or more statutory grounds listed in the Juvenile Code, 

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B) (Supp. 2021), and that termination is in the best interest 

of the child, taking into consideration the likelihood of adoption and the potential harm to 

the health and safety of the child that would be caused by returning him or her to the custody 

of the parent. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(A).

On appeal, Sonya does not challenge the court’s finding that the Department proved 

grounds for termination. Her only argument for reversal relates to best interest. In making a 
6

best-interest determination, the circuit court must look at all the circumstances, including 

the potential harm of returning the children to their parents’ custody, specifically the effect 

on the children’s health and safety, and it must consider the likelihood that the children will 

be adopted. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3). Sonya does not challenge the adoptability 

finding, so we address only the potential-harm prong of the circuit court’s best-interest 

finding.

In assessing the potential-harm factor, the circuit court is not required to find that 

actual harm would result or to identify specific potential harm. Gonzalez v. Ark. Dep’t Hum.

Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 425, at 12, 555 S.W.3d 915, 921. Additionally, “a parent’s failure to 

comply with court orders is sufficient evidence of potential harm, and . . . a failed trial home 

placement may be considered evidence of potential harm.” Id. at 12–13, 555 S.W.3d at 921–

22. Further, potential harm includes a child’s lack of stability in a permanent home; a court 

may consider a parent’s past behavior as a predictor of future behavior. Id. at 12, 555 S.W.3d

at 921.

Sonya acknowledges that she struggled with drugs and maintaining employment, but 

she notes that she was in compliance at times and had a job at the time of termination. She 

also claims that she was a victim of domestic violence, and there was never a finding that she 

physically abused any of her children or that anything with her visitation posed a threat to 

her children.

Sonya’s arguments are requests that our court reweigh the evidence in her favor, 

which we will not do. Here, concerning potential harm, the termination order found,
7

The Court finds the testimony of Brandy Ezell to be credible and that testimony, 

along with the mother’s testimony and actions demonstrate how each and every 

juvenile would be at risk of potential harm if returned to the mother. Specifically, the 

Court finds that due to the mother’s emotional instability, the domestic violence she 

allowed the juveniles to view, and her continued drug use, demonstrate the serious 

and severe risk to the juveniles’ physical and psychological health from continued 

contact, or placement with the mother.

These findings are supported on this record. Sonya continued to use drugs 

throughout the case even after regaining custody. Continued drug use is clear evidence of 

potential harm to a child. Jackson v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2021 Ark. App. 156, at 10.

Despite meaningful contact with the Department since 2013, Sonya has continuously 

demonstrated that she cannot keep her children safe from harm. 

Sonya argues that termination was premature and unnecessary because the 

Department was still working toward reunification with the fathers of H.C., M.F., and K.E. 

She contends that a less restrictive alternative to termination, placement with a parent, could 

still be achieved. To support her argument, she relies on Lively v. Arkansas Department of 

Human Services, 2015 Ark. App. 131, 456 S.W.3d 383. There, we reversed the termination 

of a father’s parental rights to children who had a permanent, stable home with their mother. 

Unlike the children in Lively, however, H.C., M.F., and K.E. were in foster care, not the 

custody of the other parent. Additionally, the evidence of potential harm posed by Sonya to 

the children was substantial and was based on both Sonya’s history—her prior involuntary 

termination of her rights to two other children—and her actions during the case. At the end 

of the case, Sonya had not achieved sobriety for any meaningful period of time and had lost 
8

custody twice in the case when she disobeyed the court’s orders during trial placements. 

There was little likelihood of successful reunification with her. 

Next, Sonya argues that the termination decision as to E.E. failed to take into 

consideration the sibling relationships when determining that termination was in her best 

interest. She contends that the testimony was clear that the Department’s plan was to 

continue to work toward reunification with the fathers of K.E., M.F., and H.C., which would 

leave only E.E. free for adoption. Sonya notes there was no evidence about sibling visitation 

among all the children and no guarantee that E.E. would be able to maintain a relationship 

with her siblings if she was adopted. As such, she argues it cannot be said that the 

Department proved termination was in the E.E.’s best interest. 

Keeping siblings together is an important consideration but is not outcome 

determinative because the best interest of each child is the polestar consideration. Martin v.

Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2020 Ark. App. 192, at 5–6, 596 S.W.3d 98, 102. Evidence of a 

genuine sibling bond is required to reverse a best-interest finding on the basis of the 

severance of a sibling relationship. Id. Here, we are lacking evidence of a genuine sibling

bond. See Brown v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2019 Ark. App. 370, at 11, 584 S.W.3d 276, 283 

(holding that “much more evidence of a genuine sibling bond is required to reverse a bestinterest finding based on the severance of a sibling relationship.”). Additionally, as explained 

above, the evidence that supports the potential-harm prong of the circuit court’s best-interest 

finding is substantial. Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court did not err in finding that 

termination of Sonya’s parental rights was in her children’s best interest.
9

Affirmed.

WHITEAKER and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

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

Andrew Firth, Ark. Dep’t of Human Services, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.

Kimberly Boling Bibb, attorney ad litem for minor children.

Dana McClain, attorney ad litem for minor children.