Court Opinion

ID: 9783665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:56:01.607442+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:29.739693
License: Public Domain

JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Judge, concurring. I agree that this case must be affirmed, but write separately to clarify how close a question this is. Much of appellant’s argument has merit. While it is true that appellant did change residences, there is no clear and convincing | n evidence that any of the residences that he chose were inappropriate or unsafe. In this regard, appellant’s reliance on our decision in Strickland v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 103 Ark.App. 193, 287 S.W.3d 633 (2008), is eminently sound. Likewise, there is merit in his argument that the record shows that, save for a very brief period, he maintained employment throughout the pendency of this case. I further agree that the mere fact that none of his jobs were “glamorous” should not support a finding that he would be unable to provide for his family. Indeed the record is a testament to Mr. Bearden’s resourcefulness. I simply cannot accept an opinion that seems to suggest that work as a day laborer made him an “inadequate parent.” Likewise, I do not share the majority’s willingness to speculate that a two-year-old child’s so-called “lack of bonding” with appellant was proof of the “potential harm” that would result from reunification with appellant. I agree with appellant that the child’s reaction was a product of the child apparently being more comfortable with a foster parent who had custody twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, rather than appellant, who was afforded only a single hour of visitation each week. I believe that this case should be affirmed only because there is uncontrovert-ed evidence that T.W. suffered from developmental delays that did not manifest until the child was in appellant’s custody. Significantly, appellant refused to acknowledge that T.W. suffered from these problems. In this regard, I believe the instant case is analogous to J.T. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (1997), in which the Arkansas | ^Supreme Court affirmed the termination of parental rights where the trial court determined that the appellant did not have the capacity to be the type of parent that the child needed.