APPEAL
FROM THE YELL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT [NO.
75NJV-15-33] HONORABLE TERRY SULLIVAN, JUDGE
Leah
Lanford, Arkansas Public Defender Commission, for appellant.
Andrew
Firth and Mary Goff, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.
Chrestman Group, PLLC, by: Keith L. Chrestman, attorney ad
litem for minor child.
LARRY
D. VAUGHT, JUDGE
This is
an appeal from an order entered on December 19, 2016, by the
Yell County Circuit Court, terminating appellant Ethel
"Amanda" Thomas Threadgill's parental rights to
her minor child, I.T. (born January 25, 2004).[1] Amanda argues
that the circuit court clearly erred in terminating her
parental rights because appellee, the Arkansas Department of
Human Services (DHS), failed to prove grounds supporting
termination. We affirm.
The
record shows that the initial removal by DHS of I.T. and her
older sister, T.W. (born December 16, 1998), [2] from Amanda's
custody was on July 31, 2015, based on allegations of
neglect; specifically, failure to protect. The affidavit
filed with the petition for emergency custody and
dependency-neglect alleged that the Arkansas State Police had
an open investigation of sexual abuse of T.W.[3] perpetrated by
Amanda's husband, Isaiah. As part of that investigation,
Amanda had agreed to keep I.T. and T.W. away from Isaiah at
all times. It was alleged in the affidavit, however, that
Amanda, I.T., and T.W. had been seen in a vehicle with Isaiah
and that Amanda admitted Isaiah was in the car with her and
the girls.
The
circuit court adjudicated I.T. and T.W. dependent-neglected
on October 7, 2015. The court found that T.W. gave a
video-taped statement claiming that Isaiah sexually abused
her and that she had been diagnosed with a sexually
transmitted disease. The court also found that there was
evidence that T.W. had been sexually abused in the past by
her grandfather, her uncle, and her mother's
ex-boyfriend. Amanda testified at the adjudication hearing,
denying that Isaiah sexually abused T.W. and claiming that
T.W. made up the story. Amanda conceded that she broke her
promise not to have Isaiah around T.W. or I.T. The court did
not find that Isaiah sexually abused T.W.; however, the court
did find that T.W. had been sexually abused in the past and
now had a sexually transmitted disease. The court further
found that Amanda had failed to comply with the protection
plan and that T.W. was fearful to go home. The court found
that the goal of the case was reunification and ordered
Amanda to submit to drug testing; attend and complete
parenting classes; obtain and maintain stable housing and
income; attend counseling; cooperate with DHS; and comply
with the case plan.
A
review-hearing order was entered on December 11, 2015,
wherein the circuit court found that Amanda was complying
with the case plan by attending counseling, parenting
classes, and NA/AA meetings; attending visitation; and
maintaining transportation. However, she was living with
Isaiah, and he was her main source of income. A second
review-hearing order was entered on April 22, 2016. In that
order, the circuit court found that Amanda was complying with
the case plan by completing parenting classes; attending
counseling and visits; and having appropriate housing,
income, and transportation.
Following
a permanency-planning hearing, an order was entered on August
10, 2016, wherein the circuit court found that there had been
some progress toward the case plan but without further
detail, found that not enough progress had occurred for
reunification. The court set the matter for a fifteen-month
permanency hearing, adding that the case could be heard as a
termination-of parental-rights case if DHS filed and properly
served a petition.
DHS
filed a petition for termination of parental rights on
September 23, 2016. DHS alleged two grounds to support
termination against Amanda-"failure to remedy, "
Arkansas Code Annotated section
9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a) (Repl. 2015) and
"subsequent factors, " Arkansas Code Annotated
section 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a).
After a
hearing, the court, from the bench, granted DHS's
petition to terminate Amanda's parental rights to I.W.
The court found that DHS had made meaningful efforts to
rehabilitate Amanda, which included parenting classes;
counseling, which Amanda attended sporadically; visitation;
and other assessments "to no avail." The court
found that Amanda had had domestic-violence issues with her
husband, Isaiah, to whom she was still married; she had very
recently revealed that she had an addiction to
methamphetamine; she had used methamphetamine during the
case; she had moved numerous times during the case; and she
was living with a new boyfriend, who gave her $300 a month to
meet her expenses. The court lastly found that affording
Amanda three additional months to work on her case would not
result in reunification. The court stated that "there is
just too much turmoil in this matter . . . we have had
probably more hearings[4] in this case in fourteen months than we
have had in I don't know how many cases that I have heard
as a judge . . . I just don't see we are making progress
. . . and this child needs permanency."
In the
termination order entered on December 19, 2016, the circuit
court found that Amanda had an unstable financial situation;
she failed to display improvement of her parenting skills;
she failed to support her children during the case; she had
an unstable relationship with Isaiah and had left
him;[5]
and she had moved back in with I.T.'s father for a day
and a half in August 2016, during which time she had used
methamphetamine with him. This appeal followed.
We
review termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo.
Knuckles v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2015
Ark.App. 463, at 2, 469 S.W.3d 377, 378. At least one
statutory ground must exist, in addition to a finding that it
is in the child's best interest to terminate parental
rights; these must be proved by clear and convincing
evidence. Id., 469 S.W.3d at 379 (citing Ark. Code
Ann. § 9-27-341 (Supp. 2013); M.T. v. Ark. Dep't
of Human Servs., 58 Ark.App. 302, 952 S.W.2d 177
(1997)). Clear and convincing evidence is that degree of
proof that will produce in the fact-finder a firm conviction
as to the allegation sought to be established. Id.,
469 S.W.3d at 379. 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., 469 S.W.3d at 379. Credibility determinations
...