Court Opinion

ID: 9756397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:26:51.051175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:21.383006
License: Public Domain

Sarah J. Heffley, Judge, concurring. I agree that the trial court’s order terminating appellant’s parental rights should be affirmed. However, I would affirm on the basis that appellant failed to present her due process argument to the trial court below. The possibility of a psychological evaluation for appellant was brought before the court three different times below. The first was at the adjudication hearing, held June 9, 2005. At that hearing, appellant testified that she did not have a current mental health diagnosis or any disability other than being legally blind. She also repeatedly told the court that she did not want to participate in reunification services, and she wanted Godwin to have permanent custody of A.C. Appellant’s counsel also reiterated that appellant did not want a psychological evaluation or any other services.. Appellant’s guardian ad litem, however, objected and argued that it was not in appellant’s best interest to not have reunification services, and that appellant needed a psychological evaluation to see if she had a mental disorder before her need for reunification services was determined. The ad litem failed to obtain a ruling on the issue. The order for no reunification services, filed June 9, 2005, contained findings that: (1) appellant had no disability that would prevent her from performing a major life activity and that she was legally blind, and (2) appellant did not want any reunification services. On August 22, 2005, appellant’s counsel and ad litem filed a joint motion to set aside the order for no reunification services and for a psychological evaluation of appellant, which is the second time the issue came before the trial court. The motion argued: [Appellant’s] behavior and mental state may indicate a mental disorder or condition that one may conclude she is not of sound mind.... this mental disorder may provide her with a valid defense to the action as well as qualify her as a member of the protected class specified in the Americans with Disabilities Act.... [Appellant] has expressed an inability to understand the proceedings against her and now joins in this request for said psychological assessment and for other reunification services. The court denied this motion on September 7, 2005, and stated that: (1) the court was convinced that appellant knew exactly what she was doing when she left the state and declined all reunification services; (2) appellant’s remedy was to file a timely notice of appeal from the order for no reunification services, not to file a motion to set aside the order; (3) appellant had ample opportunity to participate in this case but chose not to do so. The third time the issue came before the trial court was at the termination hearing, when appellant’s counsel moved for a continuance for the purpose of obtaining a psychological evaluation on appellant. Again, counsel argued that appellant may have a mental disorder or condition that would include her under the Americans with Disabilities Act and that she was unaware of the ramifications of her refusal of reunification services. Appellant’s ad litem joined in the request. The court denied the motion for continuance, again stating that the court was convinced: beyond a reasonable doubt that Mom knew exactly what she was doing when she made the statements to the court about choosing her husband over her child; she knew exacdy what she was doing when she repeatedly said she did not want services; she knew exactly what she was doing when she repeatedly said she wanted Mr. Godwin to have custody. . . . She is not disabled to the point where she would qualify for any particular services that she has not already been offered. She chose to and the Court found it was in this child’s best interest for her not to have reunification services and she knew it. The Court denies, for the third time, the motion for any psychological and a new one now, psychiatric, evaluation. As is clear from the above recitation of the proceedings below, at no time did appellant argue that her due process rights were violated as a result of not receiving a court-ordered psychological evaluation. It is settled law that we do not reach constitutional arguments in termination cases if the argument is not raised to the trial court. Moore v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 95 Ark. App. 138, 234 S.W.3d 883 (2006). Accordingly, I believe we are precluded from reaching the merits of appellant’s argument, and the trial court’s order terminating appellant’s parental rights should be affirmed.