Opinion ID: 3008926
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ground for Termination

Text: Section 9-27-341 provides for the termination of parental rights upon petition by DHS. Subsection (b)(3) sets forth the grounds for terminating parental rights and includes the imprisonment ground, which states that “[t]he parent is sentenced in a criminal proceeding for a period of time that would constitute a substantial period of the juvenile’s life.” Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(viii). We note that the prison sentence, not the potential release date, determines whether this statutory ground is satisfied. Bowman v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 477. Whether parental rights should be terminated on the imprisonment ground depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. See, e.g., Moore v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 333 Ark. 288, 969 S.W.2d 186 (1998) (affirming the termination of parental rights based on a twenty-eight-year prison sentence when the child was one year old); Basham v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 243, 459 S.W.3d 824 (affirming the termination of parental rights based on a twenty-year prison sentence when the child was four years old); Hill v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 108, 389 S.W.3d 72 (affirming the 7 Cite as 2015 Ark. 356 termination of parental rights based on a three-year prison sentence when the child was two years old and reasoning that, by time the parent was released from prison, the child would have spent half of her life in foster care); Fields v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 104 Ark. App. 37, 289 S.W.3d 134 (2008) (affirming the termination of parental rights based on ten-year concurrent prison sentences when the child was ten months old); Thompson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 59 Ark. App. 141, 954 S.W.2d 292 (1997) (affirming the termination of parental rights based on a forty-year prison sentence when the children’s ages were ten and nine years). Cf. Washington v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2014 Ark. App. 13 (reversing and holding that counsel’s argument did not meet the requirements of no-merit appeals in termination cases because he addressed the incarceration ground in a cursory and unsatisfactory fashion). In the instant case, DHS alleged this imprisonment ground in its petition, but the circuit court failed to rule on this ground in its termination order. Nevertheless, we may reach this issue in our de novo review. While our de novo review does not mean that the findings of fact of the circuit court are dismissed out of hand and that the appellate court becomes the surrogate circuit court, it does mean that a complete review of the evidence and the record may take place as part of the appellate review to determine whether the trial court clearly erred either in making a finding of fact or in failing to do so. Stehle v. Zimmerebner, 375 Ark. 446, 291 S.W.3d 573 (2009). This de novo standard opens the entire record for our review. Conagra, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 Ark. 672, 30 S.W.3d 725 (2000). Moreover, under this standard of review, an appellate court is not constrained by the trial court’s 8 Cite as 2015 Ark. 356 rationale, but may review the record for additional reasons to affirm. See State of Wash. v. Thompson, 339 Ark. 417, 6 S.W.3d 82 (1999); see also Fenstermacher v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2013 Ark. App. 88, 426 S.W.3d 483; Bradbury v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 680, 424 S.W.3d 896. It is well established that this court may affirm a trial court when it has reached the right result, although it may have announced a different reason. See Powell v. Lane, 375 Ark. 178, 289 S.W.3d 440 (2008); see also Allen v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 288, 384 S.W.3d 7; Smith v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 100 Ark. App. 74, 264 S.W.3d 559 (2007). Thus, we review the record in the present case to determine if the evidence supports affirmance. Our de novo review of the evidence convinces us that the imprisonment ground warrants termination of Brumley’s parental rights. The record reveals that the child was born in 2004. At the termination hearing in 2013, after the child had turned nine years old, Brumley testified that he had not seen his child since “probably 2007.” Brumley further testified that his son had lived with him for only six months. In its December 20, 2013 termination order, the circuit court stated that “George Brumley has remained incarcerated throughout the case. He has not seen [his child] since 2007, when he went to prison.” The court further stated that Brumley “has only resided with his son [six] months back in 2006. [The child] does not have a relationship with his father.” While incarceration is not, in and of itself, conclusive on the termination issue, imprisonment does not toll a parent’s responsibilities toward his or her children. Linker-Flores v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 364 Ark. 224, 217 S.W.3d 107 (2005). Based on our de novo review of the record, we conclude 9 Cite as 2015 Ark. 356 under these circumstances that Brumley’s seven years of incarceration during the life of his nine-year-old son constitutes a substantial period of the child’s life and that sufficient evidence supports this ground for termination. Because DHS is required to prove only one statutory ground for termination, see Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-341(b)(3)(B), it is not necessary for us to consider Brumley’s arguments concerning other statutory grounds for termination.