Court Opinion

ID: 9909392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 15:02:05.223796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:13.141879
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 600
                     ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                          DIVISION II
                                          No. CV-23-447

 SHANNA MOON AND CHRISTOPHER Opinion Delivered December 13, 2023
 MOON
                   APPELLANTS APPEAL FROM THE PERRY
                              COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
                              [NO. 53CV-20-11]
 V.

                               HONORABLE TJUANA BYRD
 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF        MANNING, JUDGE
 HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR
 CHILDREN
                     APPELLEES AFFIRMED

                             WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

       Appellants Shanna Moon and Christopher Moon separately appeal the Perry County

Circuit Court’s termination of their parental rights to their four children, Minor Child 1

(MC1),1 Minor Child 2 (MC2),2 Minor Child 3 (MC3),3 and Minor Child 4 (MC4).4 Both

appellants challenge the circuit court’s best-interest determination, arguing that the circuit

court erred when it failed to consider the impact termination would have on the sibling

       1
           Female, born November 21, 2012.
       2
           Male, born March 20, 2014.
       3
           Male, born December 1, 2015.
       4
           Female, born September 5, 2017.
relationship. Shanna additionally argues that she did not pose a danger to the children and

that she made significant progress to warrant more time. We affirm.

       On December 1, 2020, the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a

petition for emergency custody and dependency-neglect of the parties’ children.5 In the

attached affidavit, family-service worker (FSW) Sarah B. Hagerman stated that she received

a message from the Perry County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO)on November 25, 2020, stating

that they had five juveniles in custody and needed to speak to her. Shanna had filed an ex

parte order of protection against Christopher, the noncustodial legal parent, on behalf of

the children that day, and she was named the children’s temporary guardian. The children

had lived with Christopher for almost a year before the order of protection was filed. The

children were angry and crying and informed the PCSO that they did not want to be with

Shanna. The older children said that they were afraid that she did not have an appropriate

home for them and opined that she was not an appropriate caregiver, having had only

minimal contact with the children for almost a year. Additionally, the four-year-old stated

that they did not want to go with Shanna because they “[didn’t] want to have to suck a ‘tally

whacker.’” Shanna arrived to get the children without appropriate transportation or car

seats. She was informed that she needed those things to take the children into her custody.

Shanna began looking for a ride and informed the PCSO that she would be waiting to be

       5
        Another female, born December 17, 2004, was included in the petition. However,
she had reached the age of majority by the time of the termination of appellants’ parental
rights.

                                             2
contacted at home. No phone number was given to the PCSO, but a residence was listed in

the ex parte order. FSW Hagerman was instructed to access the residence and to drug screen

Shanna. However, when she arrived at the listed residence, she could not enter the yard due

to an aggressive pit bull. She attempted to contact someone at the front and back gates, she

honked the horn, and she walked the perimeter and called out to any possible occupants but

was unable to contact anyone. There were no lights on at the residence and no cars were

present. FSW Hagerman left the residence and went to the PCSO and spoke with the

children, who confirmed that they were afraid to stay with Shanna and that they did not

think Shanna’s residence or the people she kept company with were safe. Since Shanna

could not be contacted, the children were placed in the provisional custody of their adult

sister, Tori Stocks, in Pangburn, Arkansas. A second hold was placed on the children on

November 30 because the pleadings had not been filed in a timely manner. The circuit court

entered an ex parte order for emergency custody the same day the petition was filed. It found

probable cause to believe that the children were dependent-neglected and that it was contrary

to the welfare of the children to remain with appellants. The circuit court appointed an

attorney ad litem to represent the children and separate attorneys to represent appellants.

       An amended petition for ex parte emergency custody and dependency-neglect along

with a supporting affidavit were filed on December 17. It added Shawn Ashcraft as the

mother of Shanna and MC5; however, Shanna was the legal custodian of MC5. According

to the affidavit, DHS was able to contact Shanna at her residence. Shanna allowed the

workers to complete a walk-through of the residence. It was noted that the residence was

                                             3
being remodeled and that there were no beds in the children’s room. Shanna submitted to

a drug screen and tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamine. Shanna denied

using methamphetamine but said that she had been around someone using drugs. Shanna

subsequently admitted “slipping up” and informed the workers that she needed help. She

said that she had completed outpatient treatment before when she had an open case in

Faulkner County. She stated that she had been stressed about everything that was going on

with the children and that she made a mistake by using illegal drugs. The workers went over

with Shanna all the issues in the home that needed to be corrected.

       A probable-cause order was entered on December 31, finding that probable cause

existed and continued to exist requiring that the children remain in DHS’s custody. The

children were adjudicated dependent-neglected in an order filed on February 4, 2021. The

order noted that the parties stipulated―and the circuit court found―that the children were

dependent-neglected due to neglect and parental unfitness of Shanna due in large part to

drug exposure and usage. Christopher was found unfit to take custody because there was a

no-contact order in place between him and the children, and a home study and background

checks and drug screens were needed on the people in his home. The goal of the case was

set as reunification. Appellants were ordered to participate in services; complete parenting

classes; obtain and maintain stable, appropriate housing and employment; and submit to a

home study once a permanent, stable residence has been identified.

       In the May 10 review order, the circuit court found that the children were placed

together and were doing well. The circuit court found that Shanna had been inconsistent

                                             4
with her visits with the children, but when she did visit, the children were excited to see her.

The order noted that Shanna stormed out of the March 12 visit, refused a drug screen, and

called the caseworker a liar and said that she did not want to see the caseworker again. She

was ordered to provide “a 24-hour notice if she [was] going to attend visits.” Shanna was

found to be in partial compliance: she had completed her psychological evaluation, but she

had not gotten into counseling, she had not done her hair-follicle test, she had not complied

with drug screens, she had missed several visits, and she had not “done parenting” classes.

Christopher was found in substantial compliance; however, he had not completed a hair-

shaft test and had not visited the children due to the no-contact order.

       A second review order was filed on September 29. The circuit court noted that

Shanna was in rehabilitation in Conway and that this was her third time entering rehab.

Shanna was found to be in compliance, and the circuit court stated that she would finish

counseling and parenting classes once she finishes rehab. The circuit court stated that the

only problem DHS had with Shanna was getting her to submit to drug screens. The order

stated that the children were placed together in a licensed foster home. 6

       The circuit court held a permanency-planning hearing (PPH) on November 28. In

the order filed on December 6, the circuit court found that the case goal should be

reunification with a concurrent goal of placement with a fit and willing relative. Shanna was

found to be in compliance and had made significant and measurable progress. Her sobriety

       6
           The children’s sister had become licensed by this time.

                                                5
date was noted as September 9. The circuit court found that Shanna still needed to complete

parenting classes, attend counseling, submit to a hair-shaft test, remain drug-free, and make

her home available for assessment for appropriateness. Shanna’s visitation with the children

was moved to unsupervised day visits. Christopher was also found to be in compliance,

although he needed to complete parenting classes, submit to a hair-shaft test, attend

counseling, and remain drug-free.

       The circuit court held a fifteen-month review hearing on February 11, 2022. In the

order filed on May 24, the circuit court noted that the children could not be returned to

Shanna’s custody because her sobriety needed to be confirmed, and the circuit court needed

to see background checks and drug screens of the people in her home. The children could

not be placed with Christopher because he acknowledged methamphetamine use in

December, and his sobriety was also in question. The circuit court ordered DHS not to file

a petition for the termination of parental rights because the children were being cared for by

a relative who had made a long-term commitment to them. Shanna was found to be in

compliance with the case plan; Christopher was found to be minimally compliant. Shanna

was to have no visitation with the children in her home until she tested clean on a hair-shaft

drug test, the other residents had submitted to drug tests, the background checks of the other

residents were received, and no health and safety concerns were found. The order noted

that Christopher had begun visiting with the children after Shanna signed the necessary

documents to allow him to visit with them.

                                              6
       A third review order was entered on July 28. The circuit court came up with a plan

for Shanna’s visits with the children to progress to a trial home placement. Christopher was

allowed to continue supervised visits with the children for at least four hours a week. Shanna

was found to be compliant; Christopher was partially compliant. Shanna still needed to

complete parenting classes and individual counseling and to remain drug-free.

       A second PPH hearing was held on November 3. In the order filed on February 6,

2023, the circuit court noted that the case had been open for almost two years and that

neither parent had made significant and measurable progress. The case goal was changed to

termination of parental rights and adoption. The order stated in pertinent part:

           6. The mother, Shanna Moon, has not met her burden to show significant and
       measurable progress. Specifically, while Ms. Moon had progressed to the point a trial
       home placement had begun, Ms. Moon was subsequently arrested, placed in jail, and
       currently has pending forgery charges. This required the trial home placement to be
       halted due to inadequate supervision, and drug screens conducted on the juveniles
       confirmed that they had been exposed to methamphetamines. Additionally, Ms.
       Moon has not sufficiently satisfied her own sobriety. This Court ordered Ms. Moon
       to submit to continued drug screens, and while she has had two negative hair follicle
       tests, she has been unable to provide a urine sample for other required drug screens,
       and thus the only verification of Ms. Moon’s sobriety is her word. Ms. Moon states
       that she does not know how the juveniles were exposed to methamphetamines, does
       not know why the trial home placement ended, and has not been to the Perry County
       DHS office to inquire why, or utilized her appointed counsel to obtain an answer.

           7. The father, Mr. Moon, has likewise been unable to establish his sobriety to the
       satisfaction of this Court. Mr. Moon was required by this Court to undergo drug
       screens, and in fact had positive drug screens past his stated sobriety date. Mr. Moon
       has not had contact with his children since the end of July. He states that he has not
       been able to reach Ms. Trippet with Arkansas Department of Human Services to
       arrange visitation, but the evidence established that he has not been to the Perry
       County DHS office to get answers to his questions about visitation, nor has he utilized
       his appointed counsel to advocate for him.

                                              7
Shanna was to have supervised visits with the children.             Christopher was granted

unsupervised visits with the children.

       DHS filed a petition to terminate appellants’ parental rights on February 8, 2023,

alleging twelve months failure to remedy,7 subsequent other factors,8 and aggravated

circumstances.9

       The termination hearing was scheduled to take place on April 6. However, at the

beginning of the hearing, Christopher’s attorney moved for a short continuance due to

problems with the Perry County eFlex system. The hearing was continued to April 11.

Shanna testified that MC1, MC2, MC3, and MC4 are her children and that they have been

in DHS’s custody since November 25, 2020. She denied knowing why the children were

removed or adjudicated dependent-neglected. She admitted that she had a trial home

placement with the children that ended when she was arrested. She acknowledged that the

children tested positive for drugs after the trial placement but denied knowing why they did

so other than saying someone at the house must have been doing drugs. She said that her

initial sobriety date was September 10 but that the new date is February 7. She stated that

she had just celebrated her sixty days of sobriety. She testified that she currently lived at The

Jodi Bruce House (JBH), a chemical-free living facility in Texarkana, Texas, which she chose

       7
           Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a) (Supp. 2023).

       8
           Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a).

       9
           Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(ix)(a)(3)(B).

                                                8
to go to on her own. She said that she completed thirty days of inpatient rehab at the

Ouachita Chemical Dependency Unit (CDU) in Camden. She said that JBH is a ninety-day

rehab, but one could choose to stay longer. She testified that she has a job, attends two AA

meetings daily, joined an AA group, has a sponsor, and is currently working the steps from

the beginning because she wants to learn to live a sober life instead of a drug-filled one. She

said that children are not allowed to live at JBH. She stated that after her ninety days, she

plans to find a place possibly in Conway and to continue to work the program. She said that

she will also relocate her job to Conway. She admitted that she did not currently have a

stable and appropriate residence for the children, but she said that she is working on it. She

testified that she would need about fifty-two more days before she could get a place and get

custody of her children.

       Shanna testified on cross-examination by the ad litem that her children would have

to wait fifty-two or fifty-three more days before she would be ready to get them back. She

agreed that if they waited the additional days, they would be in DHS’s custody for thirty

months. She said that it was someone else’s fault that the children tested positive for

methamphetamine following the trial placement. She said that she relapsed in September

2022, right before her one-year anniversary of being sober. She stated that she relapsed when

she learned that she was at risk of having her parental rights terminated. She admitted that

she still had three or four parenting classes left but said that she had not completed the

classes over the course of the case because she did not have a car, and after she got the

children back on the trial basis, she just did not go to the classes as she should have. She

                                              9
said that the children lived with her for three or four months before they were removed. She

admitted that the home was not in good condition when the children were there. She

testified that she was once clean for nine years before relapsing. She admitted using illegal

substances the first year after the children had been taken into DHS custody. She said that

sometimes she lied about her drug usage and sometimes she would tell the truth. She

relapsed after being sober for almost a year. She said that she would not relapse again because

she has furthered her recovery and is actively working the steps. She also stated that she has

a sponsor, which she did to have the last time, and that she attends meetings like she is

supposed to. She testified that she “love[s] being sober” and that her life is now how it was

when she was sober for nine years. She said that she was arrested for an old warrant and lied

to police because she did not want to go to jail.

       On cross-examination by her attorney, Shanna stated that her first sobriety date is

September 10, 2021. She said that she was on step four at the facility in Camden, but she

started back at step one when she got to JBH. She testified that eight other women live in

JBH and that they pay rent. She said that she has been employed for about three weeks as a

prep cook at Chili’s. She stated that she is required to attend only one AA meeting a day,

but she goes to two. She said that she has been at JBH since March 3 and that she passed

her random drug test. She testified that she went to JBH after the rehab in Camden because

she wanted to further her treatment and do more than just the thirty days because she

understood that she has an addiction, and it is something she will battle the rest of her life.

She compared her addiction to a disease and said that AA is her medicine. She said that she

                                              10
actively participates in the meetings and will be chairing her first meeting on Saturday. She

stated that she wanted to move to Conway because she really does not know anyone there

anymore. She said that if she gets bad news or is otherwise feeling stressed, she will call her

sponsor or talk to someone about it. She stated that she has a lot of supporters, not just her

sponsor. She said that she has distanced herself from her family and former friends. She

stated that she has put in applications at a couple of apartments in Conway and that she is

going above and beyond trying to make her life better so she can be a good mom to her

children. She said that getting sober was her main concern.

       On cross-examination by Christopher’s attorney, Shanna denied that the children

were initially removed from her custody. She said that they went into DHS’s custody after

they were taken from Christopher. She testified that she has had her sponsor for about three

weeks, and they talk several times a day. She stated that her prior sponsor of about two weeks

relapsed, causing her to find a new sponsor. She reiterated that she is currently on step one.

       Christopher testified that he is the father of MC1, MC2, MC3, and MC4. He stated

that his sobriety date is July 8, 2022. He admitted that he did not submit to a drug screen

because DHS had not contacted his attorney about performing one on him. He said that he

did not visit with the children the entire month of March because he did not have

transportation and he was working on a property, trying to get ready for court. He admitted

that he has contacted DHS for transportation in the past, but he failed to do so in March.

       On cross-examination by the ad litem, Christopher testified that he tried to volunteer

clean drug screens but was always refused. He stated that he did not bring any witnesses or

                                              11
documentation that he has been attending NA meetings. He said that the house on Lily

Street in Houston, Arkansas, is ready for the children, he only has to put up bunk beds. He

admitted that he was just now communicating that the house is ready to be checked out at

the hearing. He stated that he last used drugs in July 2022.

       On cross-examination by his attorney, Christopher stated that the children were in

Shanna’s custody when the case first opened. He said that he lost two homes due to fires

during the pendency of this case. He testified that the children are happy during his visits

with them, but they seem sad when he leaves. He stated that he has his own landscaping

business, but business has been “kind of slow through the winter.” He said that he has not

invited DHS out to the property because “it’s still not ready.” He stated that the circuit court

should deny DHS’s petition and allow the children to come home to him.

       Toni Trippett of Perry County DHS testified that Shanna has not obtained stable and

appropriate housing because she lives in JBH; she stated that Shanna’s visits with the

children have been inconsistent; and that DHS has been unable to conduct drug screens on

Shanna—now, because she is in rehab. Trippett also stated that Shanna has not completed

her parenting classes. She testified that Shanna had “at times shown improvement, but then

she relapsed.” She opined that the potential harm of returning the children to Shanna would

be that Shanna would relapse again. Trippett testified that Shanna had not remedied the

conditions that caused removal because she did not have a safe and appropriate house, and

she had just recently become sober on February 7 when she entered rehab. Trippett stated

that Christopher had not visited with the children, that he refused the last drug screen, and

                                              12
he had not remained in contact with DHS. She opined that the potential harm in returning

the children to Christopher would be his sobriety and his lack of initiative to do the services

offered to him. She stated that Christopher had also not remedied the issues that caused

removal.   Trippett said that it was in the children’s best interest that Shanna’s and

Christopher’s parental rights be terminated because the children should not have to

“languish in foster care any longer.”

       On cross-examination by the ad litem, Trippett testified that parenting classes had

been referred and available to Shanna for twenty-eight months, the duration of the case. She

said that although Shanna completed therapy, she had not seen evidence of any benefit that

would cause her to recommend reunification with Shanna. She testified that in addition to

Shanna’s relapse, adequate supervision on Shanna’s part was also a concern because she did

not make any plans for the children when she went to jail, she allowed inappropriate people

around the children, and the home was in horrible condition. She stated that Shanna’s last-

minute effort to obtain sobriety is not enough to continue the case’s goal to reunification.

She testified that she has never known Shanna to live independently and that DHS would

want to see stability and independence before recommending any kind of placement with

Shanna. She said that it is not in the children’s best interest to have to wait on Shanna.

       On cross-examination by Shanna’s attorney, Trippett testified that not only would

Shanna need to be sober for some period of time, but she would also have to show stability.

She said that she believed Shanna was sober at the hearing and that she believed Shanna was

sincere about being sober and her desire to remain that way.

                                              13
       On cross-examination by Christopher’s attorney, Trippett testified that she reached

out to the foster mother in the middle of March to try to facilitate Zoom calls between

Christopher and the children, but the foster mother did not want to allow the calls because

they were unsupervised. She stated that relative placement was no longer a viable option

because the relative had asked that the children be removed. However, Trippett said that

the relative is working with DHS until an adoptive home is found. She stated that it is DHS’s

intention to find a home willing to take all four children; however, she agreed that if such a

home is not found, the children may have to be separated.

       Sandra Marfoglio-Hinton, the adoption specialist, testified that on April 4, there were

nine adoptive data matches for the children. She opined that the children will be adopted.

On cross-examination by Shanna’s attorney, she stated that there are other options in

addition to data matching, including adoption events. She admitted that nine was a small

number. She said that there is a better chance that the children will be adopted than not.

On cross-examination by Christopher’s attorney, Marfoglio-Hinton testified that she did not

know how long the children would have to wait to be adopted. However, she stated that

once she gets an adoption packet, children are usually adopted in between six and eight

months.

       Hunter Ayer testified that she manages Jodi Bruce Sober Living House where Shanna

lives. She said that residents are required to work a twelve-step program (NA/AA) in order

to live there. She stated that the residents are drug tested and that if Shanna had failed a

                                             14
drug test, she would be kicked out of the home. She opined that Shanna is serious about

her sobriety. She said that children are not allowed to live in the home, but they can visit.

       Tracy Antonovich, Shanna’s sponsor, testified that she met Shanna as soon as Shanna

got out of treatment at CDU and that they have been working “pretty closely together” for

about a month. She stated that she speaks to Shanna daily and that they meet face to face

about three times a week. She opined that Shanna is actively engaged in the sober support

system and in obtaining sobriety. She stated that Shanna shows the top three signs of being

in recovery for the long haul: actively attending AA, actively getting a sponsor, and having

active and frequent contact with other people in recovery. She said that she is willing to be

a long-term support to Shanna.

       DHS argued that the circuit court should grant its petition for termination of

Shanna’s and Christopher’s parental rights on the grounds pled because the children should

not have to wait around in foster care any longer. The ad litem agreed that the petition

should be granted. Both parents asked for more time and for the petition to be dismissed.

       The circuit court filed an order terminating appellants’ parental rights on April 20.

It stated that neither parent had provided evidence of a current, safe, and stable home;

neither had consistently visited the children; neither had demonstrated sustained sobriety;

and neither was fit to have custody. The circuit court granted DHS’s petition on all grounds

pled. It found that the children are adoptable and that there were nine potential matches

willing to take them as a sibling group. As for potential harm, the circuit court found that

concerns about the appellants’ sobriety and stability impacted the harm the children could

                                             15
face if placed with either of them. It noted that appellants had failed to remedy the

conditions that caused removal, they failed to show evidence of their stability or sobriety,

and they failed to comply with the court-ordered services or visit the children consistently.

Appellants filed timely notices of appeal. This appeal followed.

       This court reviews termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo.10           Termination

requires a finding of at least one statutory ground and a finding that termination is in the

child’s best interest.11 Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-341(b)(3) requires a circuit

court’s order terminating parental rights to be based on clear and convincing evidence.12

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.13 When the burden of proving

a disputed fact is by clear and convincing evidence, the question that must be answered on

appeal is whether the circuit court’s finding was clearly erroneous.14 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.15 This

       10
            Lloyd v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2022 Ark. App. 461, 655 S.W.3d 534.

       11
            Id.

       12
            Id.

       13
            Baker v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 340 Ark. 42, 8 S.W.3d 499 (2000).

       14
            Tankersley v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 109, 389 S.W.3d 96.

       15
            Id.

                                                16
court gives a high level of deference to the circuit court because it is in a far superior position

to observe the parties before it and to judge the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of

the evidence.16

       Appellants do not challenge the circuit court’s finding of statutory grounds for

termination; thus, any such challenge is waived.17 Appellants also fail to address the circuit

court’s findings regarding adoptability within its best-interest analysis. Therefore, we need

not address those findings either.18 Christopher also fails to address the circuit court’s

potential-harm findings, which amounts to a waiver of that issue as it relates to him.19

       Both Shanna and Christopher contend that the circuit court erred when it failed to

consider the impact termination would have on the sibling relationship. DHS argues, and

we agree, that this issue is not preserved for appeal. Appellants failed to raise a sibling-

separation argument to the circuit court.20 But even if the argument was preserved, it would

fail for two reasons. First, there was no evidence of a genuine sibling bond, despite

appellants’ contentions otherwise. Arkansas appellate courts have consistently held that

       16
            Barnett v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2023 Ark. App. 481.

       17
            Alexander v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2023 Ark. App. 536, ___ S.W.3d ___.

       18
            Id.

       19
            Id.
       20
         To the extent that Christopher asks this court to overrule our precedent, we decline
to do so.

                                                17
sibling-separation arguments will not support reversal absent some evidence of a genuine

sibling bond, which was not demonstrated in the record here. 21 Second, DHS testified that

it was its intention to place the children up for adoption as a sibling group and that nine

potential matches had been identified. This court has recently held that when it is expected

that the relationship between siblings will continue after termination, then the circuit court’s

best-interest finding is not clearly erroneous based on severance of the sibling relationship. 22

Additionally, there is no requirement that siblings be adopted together. 23 This court has

held that keeping siblings together is an important consideration but is not outcome

determinative because the best interest of each child is the polestar.24

       In addition to the above argument, Shanna challenges the circuit court’s potential-

harm finding. She argues that the law does not require flawless compliance. The circuit

court is not required to find that actual harm would result or to affirmatively identify a

potential harm.25 Potential harm must be viewed in broad terms, and potential necessarily

means that the court is required to look to future possibilities. Here, at the time of the

hearing, appellant had not found or maintained stable housing, she still struggled with

       21
            Waldon v. Youngblood, 2023 Ark. App. 353.

       22
            Alexander, supra.

       23
            See Nichols v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2021 Ark. App. 420, 636 S.W.3d 114.

       24
            Price v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2023 Ark. App. 140.

       25
            Ross v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2017 Ark. App. 503, 529 S.W.3d 692.

                                                 18
sobriety, and she failed to complete parenting classes, even though she had twenty-eight

months to do so. This court has held that instability and continued drug use demonstrates

potential harm sufficient to support a best-interest finding in a termination-of-parental-rights

case.26 A parent’s failure to comply with court orders itself is sufficient evidence of potential

harm.27 Additionally, evidence that supports the statutory grounds may also support a

potential-harm finding.28

       Shanna also contends that she made significant progress to warrant more time. A

child’s need for permanency and stability may override a parent’s request for more time to

improve the parent’s circumstances.29 Here, the children had been out of the home and in

DHS’s custody for over two years; yet Shanna had done practically nothing until the last

minute to achieve reunification. She did not obtain employment until just before the

termination hearing. She still did not have housing for the children. She never completed

parenting classes. Although she had advanced to having a trial placement of the children,

they had to be removed when she was arrested on an outstanding warrant. She never

appreciated why the children were initially put in DHS’s custody or took responsibility for

it. And she waited until the eleventh hour to seek help for her drug addiction. Shanna had

       26
            Jordan v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2022 Ark. App. 344, 652 S.W.3d 611.

       27
            Blasingame v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2019 Ark. App. 342, 582 S.W.3d 873.

       28
            Minchew v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2023 Ark. App. 95, 660 S.W.3d 909.

       29
            Rylie v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 366, 554 S.W.3d 275.

                                               19
ample time to prove she could parent the children during the pendency of the proceedings—

she did not do so. The children’s need for permanency outweighs Shanna’s request for

additional time. Shanna’s argument is nothing more than a request for us to reweigh the

evidence in her favor, which we will not do.30

       Affirmed.

       VIRDEN and GRUBER, JJ., agree.

       Tabitha McNulty, Arkansas Commission for Parent Counsel, for separate appellant
Shanna Moon.
       Brett D. Watson, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by: Brett D. Watson, for separate appellant
Christopher Moon.
       Kaylee Wedgeworth, Ark. Dep’t of Human Services, Office of Chief Counsel, for
appellee.
       Dana McClain, attorney ad litem for minor children.

       30
            Snider v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2020 Ark. App. 502, 612 S.W.3d 199.

                                               20