Court Opinion

ID: 9365865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 15:04:47.962508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:48.169161
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 18
                   ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                       DIVISION III
                                       No. CV-22-379

 KELLI ANDERSON                                   Opinion Delivered January   25, 2023
                               APPELLANT
                                                  APPEAL FROM THE HOT SPRING
 V.                                               COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
                                                  [NO. 30JV-20-35]
 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
 HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR                         HONORABLE CHRIS E WILLIAMS,
 CHILDREN                                         JUDGE

                                APPELLEES AFFIRMED

                            N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Judge

       Appellant Kelli Anderson appeals the 2022 circuit court order that terminated her

parental rights to her two daughters who were born in 2018 and 2019.1 Kelli asserts that

because her daughters were placed with her stepsister, termination of her parental rights was

not in the children’s best interest. We affirm.

       The Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) had been involved with Kelli in

a previous DHS case that resulted in her son being placed out-of-state in Kelli’s mother’s

custody. In this case, DHS took emergency custody of the girls in April 2020 because DHS

came to Kelli’s home and found drugs, used syringes, a syringe loaded with drugs, and

spoons, all near the children’s egg-crate-foam bedding on the floor. Kelli tested positive for

       1
       The circuit court also terminated the parental rights of the non-custodial father, Matt
Anderson. He visited the children only two times during this case, and at the time of
termination, his whereabouts were unknown. He is not a party to this appeal.
four drugs and was arrested on two felony drug-related offenses. One of the girls tested

positive for drugs in a hair-follicle drug test. In June 2020, Kelli stipulated that her daughters

were dependent-neglected due to her drug use and inability to parent; she was incarcerated.

Kelli admitted that she had used drugs for almost half her life; she was about forty years old.

       By December 2020, Kelli had made some improvements. She completed an inpatient

substance-abuse program. A case plan and services were provided for Kelli. In April 2021,

however, the circuit court changed the goal to adoption. Kelli was in prison, where it was

hard to work the case plan. The girls had been in the custody of relatives Erica and Jared

Clark for the entire case. Erica’s mother is married to Kelli’s father, so Erica is Kelli’s

stepsister and the children’s step-aunt.

       DHS filed a petition to terminate Kelli’s parental rights in May 2021, alleging

multiple statutory grounds and that it was in the children’s best interest that termination

take place. Kelli had been incarcerated but was paroled at the time of the March 2022

termination hearing. Kelli said she had visited the girls and was presently working on a

reentry program to better her life skills. Although Kelli was admittedly a long-time drug

addict, she loves her girls and was trying to put her addiction behind her. Although her

daughters had been out of her custody for almost two years, Kelli begged for more time to

show she would not fail again. Kelli did not have a close relationship with Erica, but she

appreciated that the girls were together in Erica and Jared’s home.

                                                2
       The caseworker acknowledged that Kelli participated in treatment and had kept

contact with her girls, but she recommended termination due to both the length of time the

children had been in DHS care and Kelli’s history of relapse.

       The DHS adoption specialist stated that, even if the relatives did not adopt the girls,

it would be easy to find adoptive homes for these young girls. Erica and Jared wanted to be

considered for permanent placement and would like to adopt the girls. Erica believed it was

in the children’s best interest to stay with her and her husband because they were “the only

thing they’ve known.” Erica said the girls would continue to see Kelli’s side of the family as

they had all along. Kelli’s father had often visited the girls, and Erica said she would allow

Kelli’s mother and the girls’ older brother to visit, too.

       The circuit court noted that Kelli would not complete her reentry program until mid-

August 2022. Kelli had “a long history of relapses” and years of questionable stability. The

circuit court’s main concern was that Kelli is “a constant reoffender.” The circuit court

found that DHS had proved by clear and convincing evidence multiple statutory grounds for

termination (including the one-year-failure-to-remedy ground, the subsequent-other-issues

ground, and the aggravated-circumstances ground)2 and that it was in the girls’ best interest

to terminate their mother’s parental rights. The circuit court found that Erica wanted to

adopt the girls and that the facts that supported the statutory grounds also supported that

       2
       Failure to remedy (Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a)) (Supp. 2021);
subsequent other issues (Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)); and aggravated
circumstances (Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(ix)(a)(3)(A)).

                                                3
there was potential harm if reunited with their mother. The circuit court entered a detailed

order, and this appeal followed.

       Termination of parental rights is a two-step process requiring a determination that

the parent is unfit and that termination is in the best interest of the child. Gilbert v. Ark.

Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2020 Ark. App. 256, 599 S.W.3d 725. The first step requires proof of

one or more statutory grounds for termination; the second step, the best-interest analysis,

includes consideration of the likelihood that the juvenile will be adopted and of the potential

harm caused by returning custody of the child to the parent. Id. Statutory grounds and a

best-interest finding must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, which is the degree

of proof that will produce in the fact-finder a firm conviction regarding the allegation sought

to be established. Id. We review termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo. Id. The

appellate inquiry is whether the circuit court’s finding that the disputed fact was proved by

clear and convincing evidence is clearly erroneous. Id. 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 a mistake has been made. Id.

       On appeal, Kelli does not contest the multiple statutory grounds to support

termination, nor does she contest that her daughters are adoptable or that they could face

potential harm if returned to her custody. Kelli’s appellate argument focuses on the overall

best-interest finding. Kelli asserts that it was not in the children’s best interest to

permanently, legally terminate familial bonds that flowed from Kelli’s parentage, particularly

                                              4
when they were already in a relative’s custody. DHS and the children’s attorney ad litem

disagree. We hold that Kelli has failed to demonstrate reversible error.

       Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-329(d) (Repl. 2020) provides that in initially

considering the disposition alternatives and at any subsequent hearing, the court shall give

preference to the least restrictive disposition consistent with the best interest and welfare of

the juvenile. Kelli contends that termination was premature when permanent placement of

the children with Erica and Jared would have permitted a less restrictive alternative for

permanency without destroying familial bonds. She relies on Clark v. Arkansas Department of

Human Services, 2019 Ark. App. 223, 575 S.W.3d 578, among other cases, to support her

argument.

       We have held that a circuit court is permitted to set termination as a goal even when

a relative is available and requests custody. Dominguez v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2020 Ark.

App. 2, 592 S.W.3d 723. The Juvenile Code’s permanency goals prioritize a plan for

termination and adoption unless the juvenile is already being cared for by a relative, the

relative has made a long-term commitment to the child, and termination of parental rights

is not in the child’s best interest. Id. When the parent demonstrates stability and a

reasonable hope for reunification, then there is no harm in waiting a little longer before

terminating parental rights; but when that stability and a reasonable hope for reunification

are not present, there is no reason to further delay permanency through termination and

adoption. See Brumley v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2015 Ark. 356. Here, the circuit court

found Kelli to be a “constant reoffender” and that there was “overwhelming evidence” that

                                               5
reunification “can’t be reached without her reoffending.” See Best v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs.,

2020 Ark. App. 485, 611 S.W.3d 690. The legislature’s relative preference must be balanced

with the individual facts of each case. See Dominguez, supra. Giving due regard to the

credibility assessments made by the circuit court and the weight it decided to give the

evidence before it, we hold that the circuit court did not clearly err in terminating Kelli’s

parental rights.

       Affirmed.

       BARRETT and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

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

       Demarcus D. Tave, Ark. Dep’t of Human Services, Office of Chief Counsel, for

appellee.

       Dana McClain, attorney ad litem for minor children.

                                               6