Court Opinion

ID: 9838395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-06 14:04:00.044948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:04.596662
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 365
                   ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                        DIVISION IV
                                        No. CV-23-89

                               Opinion Delivered September 6, 2023
 JAMES MAYER AND ANNA MAYER
                    APPELLANTS APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON
                               COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
                               [NO. 72JV-22-424]
 V.
                               HONORABLE DIANE WARREN,
 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF        JUDGE
 HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR
 CHILDREN
                     APPELLEES AFFIRMED

                                RITA W. GRUBER, Judge

       James Mayer and Anna Mayer (collectively “the parents”) appeal the November 27,

2022 order of the Washington County Circuit Court adjudicating their three children, MC1

(born January 2017), MC2 (born December 2017), and MC3 (born October 2019)

dependent-neglected. The parents, in a joint brief, raise three points on appeal: (1) there was

insufficient evidence to adjudicate the children dependent-neglected; (2) the court erred

when it denied the motion for directed verdict; and (3) the court erred by finding that the

Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) had made reasonable efforts to prevent

removal. We affirm.

                                        I. Background

       On August 1, 2022, DHS filed a petition for dependency-neglect and emergency

custody of MC1, MC2, and MC3. The petition alleged that the children were dependent-
neglected due to a substantial risk of serious harm on the bases of abandonment, abuse,

neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation,1 or parental unfitness. It requested a writ of

assistance so that local law enforcement could assist in removing physical custody of the

children from their parents.

       The petition was supported by an affidavit from family service worker (FSW) Stacie

Warren. The affidavit set out in relevant part that MC1 had been absent from school

Thursday and Friday (July 21 and 22); no bruising had been observed prior to those absences;

bruising was first observed when he returned to school on the following Monday; MC1

relayed that his dad had hit him with a belt; DHS was notified; and Warren went to the

school to investigate on July 28. The affidavit also set out the family’s history with DHS and

the difficulty it had gaining physical custody of the children.

       In the August 1 ex parte order for emergency custody and writ of assistance, the court

found that there was probable cause to believe that the children were dependent-neglected,

and it was contrary to the welfare of the juveniles to remain with the parents. The court

ordered that the children be placed in DHS’s custody and directed local law enforcement

personnel to assist DHS in effectuating their removal from the home. A probable-cause

hearing was held on August 4, at which Warren’s affidavit was entered into evidence. The

probable-cause order was entered, reflecting that the court placed legal custody of the

children with DHS on August 1; the family was located in Kansas on August 3; and DHS

       1
        The record contains no other references to any sexual conduct in connection with
the children.

                                               2
obtained physical custody of the children on that date with the assistance of police. The

court found that James had established paternity and is a parent of all three children;

probable cause continued to exist; and it was in the children’s best interest to continue in

DHS custody. The court ordered supervised visitation and set an adjudication and

disposition hearing for September 13.

       On September 13 and 27, the adjudication and disposition hearing was held. Anna

testified that she did not know what happened to MC1 because she was hospitalized during

the time MC1 was alleged to have been injured. She explained that she had not been aware

of the emergency order placing her children in DHS custody. DHS showed up multiple

times; she let them in once, but not other times because she had been advised by her lawyer

not to speak to them. She spoke to two of the witnesses, Autumn and Amanda, about their

testimony because they are her friends but not in an attempt to influence their testimony.

They told her that her son had gotten into a fight and had fallen. She offered to use her food

stamps to buy Autumn and Amanda groceries because they had watched and fed her children

for two weeks in June. She had given MC1 a bath on Monday morning (July 25) and did not

see any marks on him.

       James testified next. He drove a “semitruck” for J.B. Hunt, but only within 150-mile

radius of his location. He also resides in the semitruck. He regularly went to his wife’s

residence to watch and see the children. He spent an entire week with the children while

Anna was hospitalized. He disciplines his children using time out and spankings, and the

“seriousness” of the discipline depends on how many times the same rule has been broken.

                                              3
When he spanks his child, he only gives one swat with an open hand on the butt and does

not use discipline that causes bruises. He started using physical discipline when MC1 was

five.

        FSW Warren testified that she conducts investigations into child-maltreatment

allegations for DHS and had received a referral regarding allegations that MC1 had large

bruises on his stomach and right thigh. She went to MC1 and MC2’s school on July 28,

spoke with MC1, and viewed and took photos of the bruising, five of which were admitted

into evidence. She believed that the injuries occurred around the previous Thursday or

Friday (July 21 and 22) due to the color of the bruises and because MC1 had been absent

from school those days. MC1 did not need medical treatment for his injuries, and the other

two children had none. Warren went to Anna’s home that same day and spoke to Anna and

then James. Different explanations were provided for MC1’s injuries: a neighbor hit MC1

with a bat; he fell down a hill; and he fell on a bike bar. Anna told Warren that MC1’s

absences were due to his smearing feces around the house and having potty-training issues.

Warren told Anna that a protective-services case could be opened and services offered,

including weekly visits in the home. Anna responded that Warren was not going to come

into her home weekly, and she had spoken to an attorney. James and Anna then left with

MC3 and picked MC1 and MC2 up from school. The decision to place an emergency hold

was made, and when Warren returned to the apartment to do so, Anna refused to answer

the door.

                                            4
       Warren testified further that she went to the home the same day the emergency order

was entered to take physical custody of the children but was unsuccessful, despite contacting

the Fayetteville Police Department (FPD) for assistance. The officers did not remove the

children. While Anna may have been under the impression that she did not have to hand

over the kids, she believed Anna had been shown the order. She believed that the parents

fled the house and the state, and the children were ultimately picked up in Kansas on August

3. Warren was aware Anna was hospitalized until July 23. However, the children needed to

be taken into DHS custody due to the bruising on MC1 and the failure to protect by Anna,

as evidenced by her lack of concern and implausible explanations for the bruises. Warren

testified that DHS’s findings were true for abuse with physical injury without justifiable cause

with the alleged victim being MC1 and the offender being James, as well as failure to protect

all three children, with Anna as the offender.

       Autumn Kennedy testified next via Zoom. She was the apartment manager where

Anna and James had resided, and their children were friends. Regarding MC1’s bruises,

Anna told Autumn that James hit MC1 with a spatula because he smeared poop in the

bedroom but that Autumn needed to say that MC1 had gotten hurt by Autumn’s son while

at her house. Anna offered to buy Autumn food with her food stamps during the same

conversation in which they discussed Amanda’s testimony, but Autumn refused the offer.

Autumn had taken care of and fed Anna’s children in June. Autumn last saw the children

when she picked Anna up from the hospital and took her home, but she had not seen any

bruises on MC1 or MC2.

                                               5
        Amanda Wawrzaszek testified. She and Anna have attended church together for the

last three and a half years and had been neighbors for two and a half years. Regarding MC1’s

bruises, Anna told Amanda that James had grabbed objects—a kid’s golf club and then a

belt—and openly started swinging and beating on MC1. Anna asked Amanda to say that

James brought the kids to Amanda and Autumn on Thursday; a child had pushed MC1

down the stairs; and the injuries took place while MC1 was in their care when Anna was

hospitalized, none of which was true. Anna offered to buy Amanda food using her food

stamps during the same conversation in which she was talking about Amanda’s potential

testimony.

        Detective Cody Strange of the FPD testified that he had been conducting two

investigations regarding the parents. The first was a battery investigation in connection with

the bruising to MC1, which he referred to the Washington County Prosecutor’s Office for

a charging decision. Strange never saw MC1 personally, but he reviewed photographs that

showed bruising to the right torso of a child that Warren had identified to him as MC1. He

was unaware the battery charge had been filed. The second investigation involved the flight

from DHS and the court order and concluded with the parents’ arrest on August 5. His

decision to arrest them was based on the court order stating that DHS was now the primary

custodian of the children; multiple attempts to serve the order on the family; extreme

opposition to that order being served; and Anna fleeing the state from DHS and crossing

states lines.

                                              6
       Anna moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove

any emergency, child maltreatment, or any serious physical injuries that required placing a

hold since Anna was in the hospital when the injuries to MC1 occurred. Anna argued that

the pictures only show a body part; it could not be concluded that the pictures were, in fact,

of MC1; and the bruising did not appear to be severe. The other two children were not hurt

in any way, and no one knows how or when the bruises happened, who caused the bruises,

or if any instrument was used to cause the bruises. Anna further argued that there was no

allegation in the DHS petition that the parents fled the jurisdiction of the court knowing

there was a court order in place, so whether they fled should not be taken into consideration

by the court. James joined the motion for directed verdict, arguing additionally that no

emergency necessitating removal existed given that the law enforcement officers who were at

the home refused to assist with taking custody of the children. James also pointed out that

Strange did not make a probable-cause arrest because he thought it was a “thin line” case,

and DHS had not established that there was a sufficient injury to warrant emergency

removal. The attorney ad litem opposed the motion, arguing that DHS has put on sufficient

evidence to survive the directed-verdict motion, given the testimony that the mother told

someone the father was swinging and beating on a child with an object, and there were

pictures of a serious physical injury.

                                              7
       The court denied the motion. It stated that DHS had established by clear and

convincing evidence that on July 28,2 MC1 had large bruises on his stomach and thigh that

were alleged to have been caused by physical abuse by James. An investigation ensued,

resulting in a true finding of abuse by James with physical injury and a true finding for failure

to protect all three children by Anna. The true findings were based on a determination that

MC1 missed school on July 21–22; the bruises were not observed prior to July 21 but were

evident when MC1 returned to school on July 25; and the bruises were not transitory in

nature. When the parents were interviewed by DHS, they gave multiple explanations for the

bruising, none of which DHS or the court found plausible. The court further found that

DHS had established that MC1’s physical injuries were nonaccidental and caused by James,

who had admitted that he used physical punishment, the severity of which depended on the

severity of the child’s misbehavior; and when MC1 was in James’s care, he smeared feces on

the wall at his home. Two other witnesses testified that Anna told them that James had

committed the act that led to the bruising but asked them to tell a different story to the

court. The court found that DHS had previously established that probable cause existed for

the removal of the children, and Anna refused to allow DHS into her home when it went to

Anna’s for that purpose. After DHS was unable to take physical custody once more with

police assistance, Anna took the children and fled across state lines. The parents were

       2
        Although the trial court referenced a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard of
proof, only proof by a preponderance of the evidence is necessary in an adjudication hearing.
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-325(h)(2)(B) (Supp. 2023).

                                               8
uncooperative and gave every indication that they would flee with the children. The removal

of the children was necessary for their health and well-being and to get necessary services.

The court concluded that DHS had established a prima facie case that the children were

dependent-neglected.

       Anna called Corporal Dan Hutsell of the FPD. He testified that he responded to a

call to assist DHS at Anna’s apartment on August 1. James was not there. He and other

officers received a copy of the order, read through it, and spoke to Anna. She said she did

not want to “deal” with DHS that day, but they spoke, and she offered to let him in the

apartment. He did not tell Anna that she had to do anything. He could see the three

children, who appeared to be happy. The officers and DHS decided that based on the orders,

what was taking place, and the availability of other options, they would leave. While the

order did state that the FPD was to assist DHS, which he had done previously, the difference

this time was that the officers were outside of a residence as opposed to consensually inside.

       Anna testified on her own behalf, in part reiterating her previous testimony.

Additionally, she testified as follows. She and the children lived in the apartment, and James

visited the children there, usually on Friday and Saturday. She was hospitalized for about a

week and discharged on July 23 and did not know who was taking care of her children during

that time until James relayed that the children had been home with him and had not spent

any time with Autumn and Amanda as she had been told. Regarding Amanda and Autumn,

Anna testified repeatedly to her belief that they were lying and why. She claimed that

Autumn and Amanda initiated the conversations about the abuse allegations and denied

                                              9
telling them how to testify or that James hit any child with any objects. She denied seeing

the bruises, asking MC1 what happened when she came home from the hospital, or knowing

how the injuries occurred. She further denied telling any caseworkers MC1 had been hit by

a bat by a neighborhood child; had hurt himself while riding a bike; or had fallen down some

stairs. She does not have a theory regarding how the injuries occurred. She also denied that

Warren explained any type of protective services to her and continued to deny that she fled

with the children while DHS was trying to place a hold. She was shown the photos that were

admitted into evidence, denied they were of MC1, but then conceded that two of the photos

showed a mark on an abdomen that looked like MC1’s birthmark. She does not spank her

children but is aware that James had spanked MC1 once over the feces incident because he

told her he popped MC1 open handed one time on the behind. Neither she nor James are

violent people, and she believes her children are safe with them and are happy and healthy.

       The court asked Anna if she had asked Amanda and Autumn to be witnesses at the

hearing. Anna’s attorney clarified that Autumn and Amanda were both called as witnesses

that day by DHS, not Anna, and that Anna had asked them to testify before she knew she

had been secretly taped and was being set up. The court also confirmed that Anna is still

married to James; there is no legal-separation agreement.

       James then testified on his own behalf, also reiterating some of his earlier testimony.

He additionally testified that around 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. on the Friday in question, MC1

smeared poop on the closet, the walls throughout his room, and on blankets, so James

spanked him on his “butt,” which left a red mark. James did not know if it bruised, but he

                                             10
has never noticed any bruising when he watched the children. He testified that the most

severe punishment would be an open-handed swat on the “butt,” with lesser forms of

punishment being loss of TV time or isolation in a room. He was shown the photographs

and stated that the bruising shown was not in the place where he had struck MC1. He was

present at Anna’s apartment when DHS came to investigate, which is when he spoke to a

lawyer, who told him he had the right not to speak to anyone from DHS or the police. He

never saw a court order authorizing DHS to take custody of the children. He is currently

charged with endangering the welfare of a minor, second-degree battery, and violation of a

custody or court order—all felonies. He provides financially for Anna and the children by

paying the electric and gas bills, paying for fuel, and giving Anna money when she asks for

it. Anna does not have direct access to his income of $75,000 annually; she lives on

government assistance and receives HUD.

       DHS, Anna, and James gave closing arguments as did the attorney ad litem, who

argued in favor of the dependency-neglect adjudication. Further testimony was given, and

further rulings were made regarding disposition; however, neither Anna nor James appealed

the disposition.

       In the November 27 adjudication and disposition order, the court found that DHS’s

contact with the family arose in an emergency situation in which the family was not

cooperative and absented themselves from the state of Arkansas, taking the children where

preventative services were not possible. The court concluded that DHS had made reasonable

efforts to prevent removal. The court determined by a preponderance of the evidence that

                                            11
the children were dependent-neglected, finding that neither Anna nor James was credible. It

further found that MC1 was dismissed from school on July 21 with no bruises; came back

to school on July 25 with bruises; and was with James during that time frame. James admitted

he had punished MC1 for smearing poop on the walls by “popping him once on the butt,”

leaving a red mark but not knowing if it bruised. The court also found that MC1’s injuries

were not accidental or transitory. Regarding Anna, the court found that even if she did not

know immediately that James had caused injury to MC1, once she did find out, she did not

cooperate with DHS. The court adjudicated MC1 dependent-neglected on the bases of abuse

and parental unfitness due to the bruising caused by James and failure to protect by Anna.

The court adjudicated MC2 and MC3 dependent-neglected on the bases of abuse of a sibling

and parental unfitness due to the bruising on MC1 caused by James. The parents’ timely

appeal of the adjudication followed.

                                     II. Standard of Review

       Adjudication hearings are held to determine whether the allegations in a petition are

substantiated by the proof. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-327(a)(1)(A) (Supp. 2023). Dependency-

neglect allegations must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-

27-325(h)(2)(ii) (Supp. 2023). This court will not reverse the circuit court’s findings unless

they are clearly erroneous. McCord v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2020 Ark. App. 244, at 8, 599

S.W.3d 374, 379. 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

                                               12
a mistake has been made. Id. This court defers to the circuit court’s evaluation of the

credibility of the witnesses. Id.

                                     III. Points on Appeal

       Before addressing the parents’ points on appeal, we must first address their statement

of the case. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(6) (2022) provides that the appellant’s brief

“shall contain a concise statement of the case and the facts without argument” and “shall

identify and discuss all material factual and procedural information contained in the record

on appeal.” Here, the statement of the case contains argument rather than a recitation of the

facts and procedural history as required by our rules. We are not ordering rebriefing this time,

because it is not in the children’s best interest to do so. We strongly caution the parties to

closely read the rules applicable to appeals and follow them.

       As to the merits of this case, the parents’ first point on appeal is that there was

insufficient evidence to adjudicate the minor children dependent-neglected. Their second

point on appeal is that the circuit court erred when it denied their motion for directed

verdict. Because both points challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, we address them

together.

       A dependent-neglected juvenile is any juvenile who is at substantial risk of serious

harm due to abuse or parental unfitness. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(17)(A)(ii), (vi) (Supp.

2023). A dependency-neglect adjudication occurs without reference to which parent

committed the acts or omissions leading to the adjudication; the juvenile is simply

dependent-neglected—there is no such thing as a “dependent-neglected parent.” Albright v.

                                              13
Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 97 Ark. App. 277, 282–83, 248 S.W.3d 498, 502 (2007). Substantial

risk speaks in terms of future harm to the child—not actual harm. Bean v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum.

Servs., 2016 Ark. App. 350, at 5–6, 498 S.W.3d 315, 318. Only one basis is necessary to

support a dependency-neglect finding. Garner v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2020 Ark. App.

328, at 5, 603 S.W.3d 858, 861. Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-303(3)(A)(iv), (v)

defines “abuse” by a parent or guardian, in part, as “any injury that is at variance with the

history given” or “[a]ny nonaccidental physical injury.” The Juvenile Code does not define

“parental unfitness.” Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs. v. Jackson, 2021 Ark. App. 464, at 7, 636

S.W.3d 806, 810. Parental unfitness is not necessarily predicated upon the parent’s causing

some direct injury to the child in question. Bean, 2016 Ark. App. 350, at 6, 498 S.W.3d at

318–19.

       The abuse of one sibling can establish that another sibling is at a substantial risk of

serious harm, even when there is no reason to think that the other siblings have also been

actually abused. Allen-Grace v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 83, at 11, 542 S.W.3d

205, 211. It is the risk of harm that is created by the sibling’s abuse that makes a finding of

dependency-neglect regarding the other sibling appropriate. Id. at 11–12, 542 S.W.3d at 211.

Further, it is important to remember that at an adjudication hearing, the focus is on the

child, not the parent. See Johnson v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2020 Ark. App. 513, at 5, 611

S.W.3d 240, 243.

       In their brief, the parents emphasize that Anna was hospitalized when the injuries

were alleged to have occurred and could not possibly be responsible for them. They argue

                                              14
that if MC1 was, in fact, injured, James did not do it; they do not know how or when it

occurred; and the bruising was insignificant. They further argue that the FPD’s decisions not

to take a more active role in the removal of the children or pursue a probable-cause arrest

with respect to the battery suggested no abuse occurred and a lack of an emergency. They

also point to inconsistencies in Amanda’s and Autumn’s testimony as well as the lack of a

medical expert to opine regarding the bruising. In support of their arguments, the parents

rely on Madore v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2017 Ark. App. 296, 521 S.W.3d

172. Madore is inapplicable to this case since it is legally and factually distinguishable. The

children in Madore were adjudicated dependent-neglected on the basis of neglect due to

allegations of having been left alone. Id. That is not the issue in this case.

       Here, the court specifically found Anna’s and James’s testimony lacked credibility and

found Warren’s testimony to be credible. MC1 was at school without bruising, and then was

absent from school for two days, during which time he was in the exclusive care of James.

James testified that during that time frame, he physically punished MC1 over the feces

incident. Upon MC1’s return to school several days later, bruising in various stages of healing

was discovered. When an investigation was initiated, the parents were uncooperative, gave

multiple implausible versions of how the bruising occurred, and then left the state with the

children, frustrating DHS’s attempts to provide services and take physical custody of the

children. Two independent witnesses testified that Anna told them that the bruising—which

the court found was not transitory, insignificant, or accidental—was caused by James hitting

MC1 with an object. Those same two witnesses testified that Anna asked each of them to

                                               15
give a different explanation for how MC1 was injured. Both parents are facing felony charges

in relation to the events in this case. All three children resided with Anna, who testified that

although she and James do not currently live together, they remain married, there is no legal-

separation agreement, James has access to the children, and he is their sole financial support.

       The parents are asking this court to reweigh the evidence and make different

credibility determinations. The circuit court’s weighing the evidence differently than

appellants wanted it to be weighed is not reversible error. McCord, 2020 Ark. App. 244, at

11, 599 S.W.3d at 381. We do not act as a super fact-finder nor do we second-guess the

circuit court’s credibility determinations. Id. at 11–12, 599 S.W.3d at 381. We therefore

affirm on the first two points.

       Finally, the parents assert that the court erred by finding that DHS had made

reasonable efforts to prevent removal. They argue that DHS should have left the children

with Anna, and it was unreasonable not to do so, given that the alleged abuser—James—did

not live in the home, and his contact could have been limited through court order. However,

the court determined that an emergency existed, and probable cause was present to remove

the children from the home. Further, any attempts DHS could have made to leave the

children in the home with Anna prior to removal were thwarted by the parents’ lack of

cooperation with DHS and leaving the state. The parents also seem to take issue with the

circuit court’s decision not to return the children to Anna’s custody the day of the

adjudication hearing; however, the parents appealed the dependency-neglect adjudication

only, not the disposition, which is not appealable without a proper Rule 54(b) certification,

                                              16
absent here. As such, the disposition of the children is not properly before this court. See,

e.g., Johnson, 2020 Ark. App. 513, at 7–9, 611 S.W.3d at 244–45.

       When considering all the evidence in this case, we cannot say that the circuit court’s

finding that all three children are dependent-neglected is clearly against the preponderance

of the evidence. Also, we are not left with a firm conviction that a mistake has been

committed. Therefore, we affirm the circuit court’s adjudication order.

       Affirmed.

       ABRAMSON and BROWN, JJ., agree.

       Elizabeth Finocchi, for appellants.

       Ellen K. Howard, Ark. Dep’t of Human Services, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.

       Dana McClain, attorney ad litem for minor children.

                                             17