Court Opinion

ID: 9632816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:25:45.792538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:00:12.010894
License: Public Domain

Terry Crabtree, Judge, dissenting. The trial court in this case terminated appellant’s parental rights nineteen months after the children had been removed from her care. There was evidence presented at the termination hearing that appellant had yet to comply with the most basic requirement of the case plan, which was to satisfy the court that she had come to terms with and had overcome her recognized drug problem. There was also evidence that she had yet to achieve the level of stability necessary for the children’s return to her care, in that she had not maintained stable employment nor had she obtained suitable housing. The stability of her home was also complicated because of uncertainties arising from her relationship with her current boyfriend. Because I am not left with the definite and firm conviction that the trial court was mistaken in its judgment, I would affirm the termination decision. On February 28, 2003, the children were taken into emergency custody after appellant was arrested on charges of possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child. Appellant failed to appear at the review hearing held the following July. In its ruling from that hearing, the trial court found that appellant was not in compliance with the case plan in that she had missed three appointments for a psychological evaluation; she had not completed parenting classes; and she was not attending AA/NA meetings as required. At the subsequent review hearing in October, it was disclosed that appellant had moved to Georgia. Again, it was found that appellant was not in compliance with the case plan, and the trial court warned appellant that the permanency-planning hearing was upcoming and urged appellant to bring herself into compliance. At this juncture, eight precious months had passed since the children had been taken from her home, but appellant had not yet begun to engage in the process of facilitating their return home. The permanency-planning hearing was held in February 2004. At this hearing it was shown that appellant was beginning to make progress toward the goal of reunification. In late December 2003, she had returned to Arkansas from her three-month sojourn in Georgia; she had completed parenting classes; she had regularly visited with the children; and a drug screen taken in January came back negative, as did a drug screen conducted the day of the hearing. Appellant was living with her sister and had a job interview at McDonald’s. Appellant, however, had not completed outpatient drug treatment, nor had she been attending AA/NA meetings. Though the children had been out of the home for one year and could not be returned home, the trial court continued the goal of reunification because of the measurable progress appellant had made, giving her three more months to bring herself into compliance. Appellant was also granted unsupervised weekend visitation. However, this visitation was suspended after a month when appellant failed to return the children on time. Appellant offered the explanation that she had been hospitalized and was thus not able to return the children on time, but appellant never provided the court with documentation of her stay in the hospital, despite her representation that she possessed such documentation. At the permanency-planning review hearing held in May 2004, after the three-month grace period, it was disclosed that appellant was still not attending AA/NA meetings. As before, appellant had provided no documentation that she was receiving outpatient drug treatment. She had inexcusably missed one drug screening. Since the last hearing, she had only attended three visitation sessions with the children. It was said that appellant had not maintained regular contact with the department. Further, it was disclosed that her criminal charges remained outstanding. Based on this evidence, the trial court decided to change the goal from reunification to termination, noting in particular that the children had been taken into protective custody over drug usage and that appellant had not complied with the case plan in that area. Even though appellant excused her lack of visitation on the basis that her caseworker had changed and that it had not been made clear to her when her visits were to occur, the trial court was not required to accept that any such confusion extended over an entire three-month period. Although the majority is critical of the trial court’s “sua sponte” decision not to accept the department’s recommendation to continue the goal of reunification, it was the trial court’s prerogative to change the goal to termination, despite that recommendation. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-338(c) (Supp. 2005). The decision rests with the trial court, not the department. At the conclusion of this review hearing, the trial court offered appellant words of encouragement, advising her that changing the goal to termination was not the “death knell” and that there was still time to bring herself into compliance. Unfortunately, the testimony presented at the termination hearing, held some three months later, revealed that appellant did not take advantage of the additional time. There was testimony that she tested positive on May 19 for propoxyphen, also known as Darvon, that she had missed a drug screening in July, and that she had tested positive for opiates in August. She did not present satisfactory proof verifying her attendance at NA meetings. She provided one unsigned sign-in sheet for May, none for June, four unsigned sheets in July, and four unsigned sheets in August. Her attendance at only two meetings in July could be confirmed. Other than her own word, she provided no documentation that she had participated in or completed outpatient drug counseling. It should be noted that appellant represented throughout the proceedings, and to Ms. Kucala, K.L.’s counselor, that she had been receiving treatment on her own at UAMS. Jim Pfeiffer, a licensed professional counselor and certified drug-abuse therapist, testified1 that he performed a drug and alcohol assessment on appellant in May of 2003, while appellant was incarcerated on the drug charges. In the interview, appellant told him that she used drugs and that she drank alcohol sparingly, even though she admitted to having a DWI a year and a half ago. She said that she had smoked marijuana one time and that she had used methamphetamine four or five times, but that her drug of choice was hydrocodone. Appellant reported that she had been using this drug for five years on an average of four to five pills a day, twenty to thirty pills per month. Pfeiffer said that appellant did not believe that she needed treatment because she had experienced no cravings since her incarceration. Appellant stated that she traded methamphetamine for hydrocodone, but Pfeiffer said that she did not consider trading as dealing in drugs. Dr. Paul Deyoub, a forensic psychologist, conducted an evaluation of appellant in September of 2003. He diagnosed appellant with a mixed personality disorder with Borderline, Histrionic, and Dependent traits. He said that this disorder was characterized by substance abuse, instability, and unstable and abusive relationships. Noting that appellant had been in and out of court on hot-check and contempt charges, as well as her more recent drug arrest, he said that trouble with the law also typified her personality disorder. Dr. Deyoub stated that appellant had no insight into her substance-abuse problem and that she tended to minimize it. He felt that she was at risk for continued drug use and regarded her prognosis for reunification as being guarded and poor, although not impossible. Dr. Deyoub said that one could not believe appellant’s promises of improvement and that one would have to see evidence of improvement before the children could be returned. He testified that appellant must demonstrate to her caseworker that: she is drug free, living in a home, working, supporting herself, not using drugs and doing her therapy. All of that would have to happen before. At the time I did this, and in cases like this which I do a lot of these, you’re looking at six months to a year and she would be able to verify those steps. Because individuals like her and specifically [appellant] would have a high likelihood of recurrence or positive drug screens and so forth and all of that would be a set back. You would have to see it before you could place the kids back with her and put two young children with her if she’s still using drugs or if she’s still living an unstable life. People like [appellant] with a diagnosis and with her IQ are capable of doing this. That’s not the problem. The problem is doing it. Jan Kucala did testify that appellant had made progress since the last hearing, that the children were very bonded to her, and that K.L. would probably regress if appellant’s rights were terminated. However, Ms. Kucala also stressed K.L.’s overriding need for stability, which was a need that appellant could not presently fulfill. She testified that achieving stability was going to be a “great difficulty” because there were still a lot of unknowns in the relationship between appellant and her boyfriend. She could not recommend that the children return home, only that a trial period of unsupervised but closely monitored visits in the home begin. She was not able to predict how long it would take before appellant became stable enough for the children to return home, saying only that she did not think it would be a “long-term thing.” There was further testimony at the hearing that, although appellant had been asked, she had never provided pay stubs to verify her four-month employment at McDonald’s. Appellant claimed that she was presently working for her father caring for her aged grandmother. There was testimony that her caseworker could not verify appellant’s claim that she was moving into a larger apartment. An overview of this case reveals that appellant waited ten months to begin working toward the goal of reunification, that she maintained partial compliance for five months, and that she made no meaningful progress and in fact regressed in the final months of the proceedings. At the termination hearing, the trial court was entitled to accept Dr. Deyoub’s testimony outlining the necessity for documented proof, not appellant’s word, that she was meeting the goals of the case plan of living a stable and drug-free life, and of maintaining employment and suitable housing. The trial court could find based on the evidence at the hearing that appellant had not successfully dealt with her drug problem, which was the reason that the children were removed from the home. Appellant could not verify that she had attended drug counseling or NA meetings on a regular basis. Just prior to the termination hearing, she had failed two drug tests and had failed to attend one drug screening. Although appellant testified that she had tested positive for opiates because of prescribed medication, appellant did not offer any verification of this prescription, and the trial court was not obliged to believe her testimony. There was also testimony at the hearing that called into question whether or not appellant was or even had been gainfully employed. Appellant failed to provide proof of employment, and the trial court was not required to believe her testimony that she was currently employed by her father. There was testimony giving the trial court reason to doubt that appellant had made arrangements for an apartment that could accommodate the children. Moreover, after nineteen months, appellant had not achieved the level of personal stability necessary for the children to return home. According to Ms. Kucala, there was much work yet to be done, and she could not say when appellant would be ready for the children to return home on a permanent basis. Although Ms. Kucala expressed the opinion that K.L. would regress if appellant’s rights were terminated, the trial court was entitled to accord whatever weight to that testimony as it saw fit, and could properly focus on the overall best interest of the child in the context of all the evidence under consideration. It is always a sad day anytime a trial judge makes the tough and unenviable decision that the best interest of children demands the termination of parental rights. On appellate review, we are to give a high degree of deference to the trial court, as it is in a far superior position to observe the parties before it. Trout v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Services, 359 Ark. 283, 197 S.W.3d 486 (2004). With that degree of deference in mind, I am not willing to say that the trial court’s decision is clearly erroneous. In this case, the seasoned trial judge had the best opportunity to observe appellant, as well as the other witnesses, and to make an informed assessment of the situation gathered over the course of nineteen months. The trial judge took the case under advisement in order to render a careful and thoughtful decision. It is my opinion that we should not second-guess the judgment of the trial court when there is an abundance of evidence to support its decision. I would affirm, and I am authorized to state that Judge Glover joins in this dissent.   When the record was being prepared, the court reporter discovered that her equipment had malfunctioned and that Pfeiffer’s testimony had not been recorded. The trial judge’s clerk prepared a summary of his testimony from the judge’s notes. By entry of an agreed order, the summary was accepted by the parties and the court as a fair representation of his testimony.