Case Name: Leona MERIWEATHER v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT of HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 2007-04-11
Citations: 98 Ark. App. 328
Docket Number: CA 06-955
Parties: Leona MERIWEATHER v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT of HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Judges: Pittman, C.J., Gladwin and Bird, JJ., agree.
Reporter: Arkansas Appellate Reports
Volume: 98
Pages: 328–341

Head Matter:
Leona MERIWEATHER v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT of HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
CA 06-955
255 S.W.3d 505
Court of Appeals of Arkansas
Opinion delivered April 11, 2007
Killough Law Firm, by; Larry Killough, Jr., for appellant.
Gray Allen Turner, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.
Sharon Bray Taylor, Attorney ad Litem.

Opinion:
John B. Robbins, Judge.
Appellant Leona Meriweather appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter SM, as found by the White County Circuit Court. SM was bom in March 2005, and she was removed from appellant's custody in April 2005. The order terminating parental rights was entered on July 26, 2006, from which she filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellant argues that the trial court clearly erred in terminating her parental rights because she undisputedly completed the requirements of her case plan, and because her low intellectual functioning was not a sufficient basis upon which to terminate her parental rights. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the child's attorney ad litem have filed a combined brief in opposition to appellant's arguments on appeal, asserting that there is no reversible error. We affirm.
The history of this case is as follows. SM came into custody as a one-month-old when she was treated at a hospital for a spiral fracture to her left humerus and there was an adult-sized-hand-shaped bruise on her right thigh. Appellant was the child's sole care giver and offered no explanation for the injuries. After being removed from her mother's care, SM thrived in foster care. She was developing appropriately for a child just over one year old, and the DHHS case worker testified that it was highly likely she would be adopted if cleared for such a plan. SM had no special needs.
The concern was that appellant needed intensive and constant supervision and instruction in how to parent SM at each stage of development. Appellant was admittedly of low intellectual function, with an I.Q. of sixty-nine, bordering on mild mental retardation. Appellant also had physical disabilities, suffering from severe asthma and rheumatoid arthritis. Appellant had been offered parenting classes, counseling referrals, nutritional instruction, housing assistance, home visits, transportation, visitation with her child, and daily routine and hygiene training. Appellant had been cooperative and completed the lion's share of the case plan. However, DHHS personnel had observed that in appellant's two-hour visits with her daughter, appellant would sometimes handle the child too roughly, and she would often fall asleep for the second hour of the visit. Due to the arthritis, appellant had difficulty in physically handling SM. Due to her intellectual functioning, appellant required a lot of assistance and cheerleading from DHHS staff. For the last month of the case plan, appellant was permitted semi-supervised two-hour visits in her home with her daughter, but DHHS was concerned that these two-hour increments were the outer limit of appellant's capacity to care for the child. In short, while it was clear that appellant was receptive to services, and she tried to gain what was being offered to the best of her ability, she would need assistance indefinitely. The caseworker summed up the situation by saying that appellant was willing, but incapable, of independently caring for her daughter.
Appellant testified that she lived in Searcy, Arkansas, with her diabetic mother in a three-bedroom trailer. Appellant did not work and instead drew disability benefits, which met her monthly expenses. Appellant said she took pain medication for her arthritis and used an inhaler for her asthma. She said she assisted in her mother's care. Appellant agreed that she needed the help of DHHS in the beginning, but she appreciated the assistance, she had learned, and she loved her daughter and wanted her to come home. Appellant testified that she thought SM's arm had been broken due to either placing SM in or removing SM from the car seat. Appellant admittedly did not have custody of an older daughter either, but she enjoyed visitation with her.
The trial court rendered findings at the end of the hearing, terminating appellant's parental rights. The judge found that after the original filing of the petition for dependency-neglect, other factors had arisen demonstrating that return of the child to her mother would be contrary to the child's health, safety, and welfare. Specifically, the trial court found that appellant was incapable of remedying the conditions, and further, she had subjected the child to aggravated circumstances. The judge remarked:
We've got a 15 month old child that despite the intensive efforts of the Department of Human Services to provide assistance, we've only gotten to the point where we can have 2 or 3 hour unsupervised visits in the home with her mother. Raising a child is much more, as we all know, than 2 or 3 hours worth of effort. It is a day in and day out concentrated effort that requires ability to reason, ability to concentrate, formulate, problem solving methods, respond to emergency situation; just to keep the safety of the child in place, not to mention all of the other things that go with parenting. . It may very well be that if we maintained a fourteen and a half year more intensive foster care case, that we would reach this juvenile's 18th birthday without her having been severely harmed physically. I doubt seriously that we could reach her 18th birthday without her being severely harmed emotionally and psychologically.
The order recited that due to the mother's low intellectual level and limited mental capacity, SM could not be returned home in a reasonable period of time. The order noted that the child was likely to be adopted and that it was in her best interest that termination of parental rights be ordered. This appeal followed.
We review termination of parental rights cases de novo. Dinkins v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (2001). Termination of parental rights is an extreme remedy and in derogation of the natural rights of parents, but parental rights will not be enforced to the detriment or destruction of the health and well-being of the child. Id. Grounds for termination of parental rights must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. M.T. v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 58 Ark. App. 302, 952 S.W.2d 177 (1997). 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. Anderson v. Douglas, 310 Ark. 633, 839 S.W.2d 196 (1992). When the burden of proving a disputed fact is by clear and convincing evidence, the appellate inquiry is whether the trial court's finding that the disputed fact was proven by clear and convincing evidence is clearly erroneous. J.T. v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (1997). We give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id. Where there are inconsistencies in the testimony presented at a termination hearing, the resolution of those inconsistencies is best left to the trial judge, who heard and observed these witnesses first-hand. Dinkins v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., supra. 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.
The goal of Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-341 (Supp. 2003) is to provide permanency in a minor child's life in circumstances in which returning the child to the family home is contrary to the minor's health, safety, or welfare and the evidence demonstrates that a return to the home cannot be accomplished in a reasonable period of time as viewed from the minor child's perspective. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(a)(3). Parental rights may be terminated if clear and convincing evidence shows that it is in the child's best interest. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3). Additionally, one or more statutory grounds must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.
Appellant does not dispute that SM was out of the home for at least a year, nor does she dispute that she needed assistance to learn how to effectively behave as a parent to her infant. She does not dispute that SM's arm was broken within a month of her birth, while appellant was the care giver. Her contention is that the trial judge clearly erred in terminating her parental rights where she had completed the case plan requirements set forth by DHHS. Appellant argues that she had learned through training how to care for her daughter. Appellant asserts that DHHS "chose the easy way out" and sought termination on the basis of appellant's mental deficiencies rather than continue to provide training and assistance in the long term to keep the familial ties. Appellant, however, acknowledges the existence of statutory grounds for termination, that being parental inability or incapacity flowing from mental deficiency. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341 (b) (3) (vii)(c).
DHHS and the attorney ad litem assert that appellant never fully accepted responsibility for SM getting hurt in her care, and further that appellant was physically and mentally incapable of caring for her daughter without intensive and constant assistance. They assert that SM needed permanency, and termination of parental rights was the only means by which to achieve that goal.
We are duty-bound to support the trial court's action that gives effect to the legislature's overriding intent, which is to protect the best interest of our state's children in achieving a safe and permanent home. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341 (a)(3). While appellant attempted to be the parent that her child needed, she was not able to be that parent, at least not without a steady support system provided by DHHS. J.T. v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (1997). Improvement and compliance toward the end of a case plan will not necessarily bar termination of parental rights. See Camarillo-Cox v. Dep't of Human Servs., 360 Ark. 340, 201 S.W.3d 391 (2005); Trout v. Dep't of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 283, 197 S.W.3d 486 (2004); Dinkins v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., supra. Appellant cites to our court's resolution of the Camarillo-Cox and Trout cases on appeal, as examples of reversible termination orders. However, the Arkansas Supreme Court took those appeals on review and reversed our decisions, ultimately affirming the trial court decisions in those cases. Therefore, appellant's citation to the earlier opinions as persuasive authority is to no avail.
After a thorough review, we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. We are convinced that appellant was willing to try to be the parent SM needed, but she was unable to be that parent on her own. Appellant's parental rights simply had to yield to the best interest of SM. On the evidence before us, we cannot say that the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous.
Affirmed.
Pittman, C.J., Gladwin and Bird, JJ., agree.
Hart and Griffen, JJ., dissent.
This appeal is governed by the new rules promulgated by our supreme court in a per curiam opinion handed down on May 18,2006. The rules, effective July 1,2006, provide for an expedited process within which appeals from dependency-neglect cases are heard.
Appellant does not assert that DHHS discriminated against her or failed to provide any services to her or make reasonable accommodations for her pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.