Court Opinion

ID: 9905372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 15:03:51.141282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:13.612600
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 550
                   ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                       DIVISION III
                                       No. CV-23-485

TIFFANY BAKER                                 Opinion Delivered November 29, 2023
                             APPELLANT
                                              APPEAL FROM THE CLARK COUNTY
V.                                            CIRCUIT COURT
                                              [NO. 10JV-21-87]

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF                        HONORABLE BLAKE BATSON,
HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR                      JUDGE
CHILD
                    APPELLEES                 AFFIRMED

                              KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge

       Appellant Tiffany Baker appeals after the Clark County Circuit Court filed an order

terminating her parental rights to her son, Minor Child 3 (MC3) (DOB 12-29-07).1

Appellant generally argues on appeal that there was insufficient evidence for the circuit court

to find that the termination of parental rights was in MC3’s best interest.2 More specifically,

she argues that termination was not in MC3’s best interest because (1) the circuit court found

       1
       Appellant has two other children, Minor Child 1 (MC1) (DOB 03-15-06) and Minor
Child 2 (MC2) (DOB 02-27-07). MC1 and MC2 entered foster care subsequent to MC3,
and for reasons that are not clear, their case proceeded under a separate case number.
However, both cases were heard together at a single termination hearing, but two separate
termination orders and two separate notices of appeal were subsequently filed.

       2
       This case is the companion to Baker v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2023
Ark. App. 549, also decided today, in which appellant has appealed the termination of her
parental rights to her other two children, MC1 and MC2.
that MC3 was not likely to be adopted; (2) termination would also sever MC3’s relationship

with his grandmother “who was a lynchpin in his life”; and (3) termination did not serve the

purpose of the Juvenile Code but was instead implemented to punish her. We affirm.

                                     I. Relevant Facts

       On July 15, 2021, the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition

for emergency custody and dependency-neglect asking the circuit court to find MC3

dependent-neglected and to place him in DHS’s custody. In the affidavit attached to the

petition, DHS stated that MC3 and his siblings, MC1 and MC2, had been living with their

maternal grandmother, Michelle Sims (formerly Green). Ms. Sims had a guardianship over

all three children. MC3 was ordered into DHS’s care on July 14, 2021, after a family-in-

need-of-services (FINS) court hearing regarding MC3. At that hearing, Ms. Sims had

explained that MC3 has severe behavioral problems and that she was concerned about her

safety and the safety of others in the home. Ms. Sims further explained that MC3 had

physically attacked her, had intentionally tried to look at females while they were getting

dressed, broke into and entered into properties, and failed to show any remorse for his

behaviors. As such, Ms. Sims had informed the circuit court that she could not allow MC3

to remain in her home, and the circuit court exercised an emergency hold on MC3 and

placed him in foster care.

       The circuit court granted the petition, finding that probable cause existed, and an

agreed probable-cause order was filed on July 20, 2021. Thereafter, an agreed adjudication

order was filed on October 13, 2021, finding MC3 dependent-neglected. The circuit court

                                             2
found that appellant is MC3’s biological mother and is his noncustodial parent for purposes

of the Arkansas Juvenile Code. MC3’s father is deceased. It found that Ms. Sims had

obtained a guardianship over MC3 at one point, and MC3 was removed from the custody

of his mother. However, the circuit court noted that Ms. Sims no longer wished to be MC3’s

guardian. The circuit court found that appellant was not “a fit parent for the purposes of

custody or visitation because despite receiving service and being notified that the juvenile is

in foster care, she has not presented herself to the Court to be assessed.” As such, the circuit

court found that MC3 could not be safely placed in appellant’s custody. The circuit court

set the goal of the case as relative placement.

       A review hearing was held on February 7, 2022, and an order was filed on February

17, 2022. The circuit court continued the goal of relative placement. The circuit court

noted that safety concerns prevented trial placement, return of custody, or other placement

with appellant because appellant was “living with a friend and unable to provide for [MC3].”

Regarding appellant’s compliance, the circuit court found that appellant had “partly

complied with the case plan and the orders of the Court.” It explained that appellant had

begun the “Triple P program” and had been referred for “Intensive Family Services.” It

ordered appellant to “attend supervised visits with the juvenile; continue to be drug tested;

continue to allow the Department access to her housing; continue to participate in case plan

services; maintain safe and stable housing and employment; and participate in therapy and

other services, to the extent recommended by the Department.”

                                                  3
       For context, it is important to note that DHS exercised emergency custody of MC1

and MC2 in the companion case on February 28, 2022, and that DHS had filed a petition

for ex parte emergency custody and dependency-neglect on March 1, 2022. Although the

case regarding MC1 and MC2 was separate from the case involving MC3, some issues and

goals overlapped between the two cases.

       After multiple continuances, a permanency-planning hearing regarding MC3 was

held on August 1, 2022, and an agreed permanency-planning order was filed on August 15,

2022. The circuit court changed the goal from relative placement to reunification with

appellant, which aligned with the goal set in the companion case for MC3’s two other

siblings. However, the circuit court found that appellant was “unfit” and noted that safety

concerns prevented trial placement, return of custody, or other placement with appellant

because she lacked housing, employment, and transportation.          Regarding appellant’s

compliance with the case plan and court orders, the circuit court made the following

findings:

       The mother has partly complied with the case plan and the orders of the Court.
       Specifically, the mother has tested negative on a drug screen at the Pulaski County
       office and at a drug screen ordered in court today. The mother is not employed, lacks
       stable housing, and has no transportation. The mother is ordered to participate in
       the services offered by the Department, to communicate her residential address to the
       Department, submit to hair follicle testing and random drug screens, and allow the
       Department access to her home.

       A fifteen-month review hearing was held on November 4, 2022, and a written order

was filed on November 7, 2022. The circuit court continued the goal of reunification and

ordered DHS to continue to provide appellant services. However, the circuit court noted

                                             4
that the “compelling reason to continue providing services is to have a full permanency

planning hearing with the companion case on January 23, 2023.”

       DHS thereafter filed a petition for the termination of parental rights on January 13,

2023, specifically alleging that appellant’s parental rights should be terminated on the basis

of the statutory grounds of failure to remedy, other subsequent factors, and aggravated

circumstances. See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3) (Supp. 2023).

       A final permanency-planning hearing was held on January 9, 2023, and a written

order was filed on April 5, 2023. It was in this order that the circuit court changed the goal

of the case to adoption. The circuit court did order DHS to continue to provide appellant

reunification services. Regarding appellant’s compliance with the case plan and court orders,

the circuit court made the following findings:

       The mother has not complied with the case plan and the orders of the Court.
       Specifically, the mother testified that she has used methamphetamine since the last
       review. The mother is not employed, lacks stable housing, and has unreliable
       transportation. The mother is ordered to participate in the services offered by the
       Department, to communicate her residential address to the Department, submit to
       hair follicle testing and random drug screens, and allow the Department access to her
       home.

       A joint termination hearing was held on April 3, 2023, regarding MC1, MC2, and

MC3. The circuit court simultaneously heard testimony and oral arguments concerning the

circumstances and issues regarding all three children. Because the evidence presented at the

termination hearing is discussed in detail in the companion case, we do not repeat it herein.

See Baker v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2023 Ark. App. 549.

                                              5
       The circuit court filed a written order terminating appellant’s parental rights to MC3

on April 20, 2023, finding that the statutory grounds of failure to remedy, other subsequent

factors, and aggravated circumstances supported termination.           Regarding MC3’s best

interest, the circuit court made the following findings relevant to the issues raised on appeal:

              9. The Court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that
       termination of the mother Tiffany Baker’s parental rights is in the best interest of the
       juvenile. In making this finding, the circuit court considered all relevant factors,
       including the likelihood that the juvenile would be adopted if the parental rights were
       terminated, and the potential harm, specifically addressing the effect on the health
       and safety of the juvenile, that could be caused by returning the juvenile to the
       mother.

              a. As to the juvenile’s adoptability, the Court finds that the juvenile is not
                 likely to be adopted, because the juvenile has significant behavioral barriers
                 to adoption. However, the Court finds that the juvenile does not wish to
                 be adopted, but rather to remain in Department custody, continue to avail
                 himself of the Department’s Transitional Youth Services, and to have the
                 goal of APPLA once he turns sixteen. Moreover, the Department
                 continues to provide mental and behavioral health services to the juvenile,
                 which could improve his potential to become adoptable.

              b. As to potential harm, the Court finds that the juvenile would likely be
                 subjected to harm if returned to the mother because of the mother’s
                 ongoing substance abuse and ongoing instability. The mother’s failure to
                 engage in the psychological evaluation, failure to engage in counseling after
                 she initially told the Department that she would obtain her own
                 counseling, and her failure to engage in inpatient drug rehabilitation, in
                 conjunction with the juvenile’s significant behavioral issues, would leave
                 the juvenile at great risk of harm if placed with the mother. Moreover, the
                 mother’s unstable living conditions—she lives with a male friend who has
                 not communicated with the Department, and the mother has prevented
                 the Department from thoroughly inspecting the home, on the grounds that
                 she could only authorize access to the single room that she occupied—
                 would increase the risk of harm if the juvenile were placed with the mother.

                                               6
              10. The Court therefore grants the Department’s petition and terminates all
       parental rights of Tiffany Baker to [MC3], pursuant to section 9-27-341 of the
       Arkansas Code. . . .

This appeal followed.

                                        II. Analysis

       Because the issues and arguments raised on appeal are the same as those presented in

the companion case, which we also hand down today, we find it unnecessary to restate them

herein. Further, this court’s conclusions are set forth in the companion case and are

incorporated herein.    See Reynolds v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2023 Ark. App. 293.

Accordingly, we affirm the termination of appellant’s parental rights as to MC3.

       Affirmed.

       ABRAMSON and WOOD, JJ., agree.

       Leah Lanford, Arkansas Commission for Parent Counsel, for appellant.

       Dana McClain, attorney ad litem for minor child.

                                             7