FROM THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT
[NO. 16JV-15-410] HONORABLE CINDY THYER, JUDGE
Bowers Lee, Arkansas Public Defender Commission, for
Firth, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.
Chrestman Group, PLLC, by: Keith L. Chrestman, attorney ad
litem for minor children.
PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, JUDGE
Natasha Furnish appeals a Craighead County Circuit Court
order terminating her parental rights to three of her
children, B.M., A.M., and C.M. More specifically, she challenges
both the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial
court's findings of statutory grounds and its
best-interest determination. We affirm.
Department of Human Services (DHS) exercised a
seventy-two-hour hold on R.M., B.M., A.M., and C.M. on
November 10, 2015, at the direction of the Cleburne County
Circuit Court. The court directed the hold by DHS at a Family
in Need of Services (FINS) hearing when Furnish tested
positive for amphetamines, methamphetamine, and
benzodiazepine. Max McKinney,  who was caring for A.M. and C.M.
at the time, was contacted at home, and he also tested
positive for illegal substances.
the hold was taken in Cleburne County, DHS filed its
dependency-neglect petition in Craighead County where Furnish
was a resident. The Craighead County Circuit Court
adjudicated the children dependent-neglected on December 11,
2015, stemming from parental unfitness due to Furnish's
drug usage. Subsequent to adjudication, the court
conducted two review hearings. At both review hearings, the
court found that Furnish had only partially complied with the
September 9, 2016, less than one year from the date of
removal, DHS filed a petition to terminate Furnish's
parental rights to B.M., A.M., and C.M., alleging the
subsequent-other-factors ground for termination. See
Ark. Code Ann. §9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a)
(Repl. 2015). On October 11, 2016, the court held a
termination hearing. After the hearing, the trial court
entered an order terminating Furnish's parental rights to
the three children. The court found that DHS had proved by
clear and convincing evidence the subsequent-other-factors
ground for termination. The court also held that termination
was in the best interest of the children, finding that the
children are adoptable and that there was potential harm to
the children if returned to Furnish's custody.
appeals the trial court's order terminating her parental
rights, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the court's findings on statutory grounds as
well as both adoptability and potential-harm prongs of the
review findings in dependency-neglect proceedings de novo,
but the trial court's findings will not be reversed
unless the findings are clearly erroneous. Ellis v. Ark.
Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. 441, 505 S.W.3d
678. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is
evidence to support it, the reviewing court based on the
entire evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed. Id. While we give
due deference to the trial court's determination of the
credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their
testimony, the trial court's conclusions of law are given
no deference. Id.
conducted our de novo review of all the evidence submitted in
this case. Because we are satisfied with the decision of the
circuit court and the accompanying quantum of evidence and
findings supporting its order, we affirm by memorandum
opinion. In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark.App. 301,
700 S.W.2d 63 (1985). The circuit court's decision to
terminate Furnish's parental rights to B.M., A.M., and
C.M. is not clearly erroneous and is affirmed in all
Klappenbach and ...