APPEAL
FROM THE JOHNSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 36JV-16-38]
HONORABLE KEN D. COKER, JR., JUDGE
Tina
Bowers Lee, Arkansas Public Defender Commission, for
appellant.
One
brief only.
WAYMOND M. BROWN, JUDGE
The
Johnson County Circuit Court terminated the parental rights
of appellant Breonna Hogue to her three children, I.H. (DOB
12-17-15), S.H. (DOB 11-13-14), and J.H. (DOB
08-22-13).[1] Hogue's counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw and a no-merit brief pursuant to Linker-Flores
v. Arkansas Department of Human Services[2] and Arkansas
Supreme Court Rule 6-9(i), [3] contending that there are no
meritorious grounds to support an appeal. The clerk of our
court mailed a certified copy of counsel's motion and
brief to appellant, informing her of her rights to file pro
se points for reversal. Appellant has not filed any pro se
points for reversal. We affirm the termination and grant
counsel's motion to withdraw.[4]
Arkansas
Supreme Court Rule 6-9(i)(1) allows counsel for an appellant
in a termination-of-parental-rights case to file a no-merit
petition and motion to withdraw if, after studying the record
and researching the law, counsel determines that the
appellant has no meritorious basis for an appeal. The
petition must include an argument section that lists all
adverse rulings to the appellant made by the circuit court on
all objections, motions, and requests made by the party at
the hearing from which the appeal arose and explain why each
adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for
reversal.[5] The abstract and addendum shall contain
all rulings adverse to the appellant made by the circuit
court at the hearing from which the order on appeal
arose.[6]
This
case began after the Arkansas Department of Human Services
(DHS) was contacted following a call to the Child Abuse
Hotline concerning I.H. DHS exercised a seventy-two- hour
hold on the children on May 6, 2016, and filed a petition for
emergency custody and dependency-neglect on May 9, 2016. The
court entered an ex parte order for emergency custody the
same day. In the adjudication order filed on August 11, 2016,
the court found that I.H. was dependent-neglected due to
abuse and that S.H. and J.H. were dependent-neglected due to
the abuse of a sibling. The court set the goal of the case as
reunification and ordered DHS to provide certain services.
DHS
filed a petition for termination of parental rights on
November 7, 2017, alleging two grounds for termination: (1)
failure-to-remedy ground and (2) subsequent-issues ground.
The termination hearing took place on December 12, 2017. The
trial court granted DHS's petition to terminate
appellant's parental rights and filed an order on
December 19, 2017. It stated in pertinent part:
The juveniles were adjudicated dependent-neglect[ed] on July
5, 2016 due to physical abuse by the mother and putative
father towards [I.H.] and abuse to a sibling as to [S.H. and
J.H.]. The juveniles have continued out of the custody of the
mother for twelve (12) months and despite a meaningful effort
by the department to rehabilitate the parent and correct the
conditions which caused removal, those conditions have not
been remedied by the mother. A.C.A. § 9-27-341
(b)(3)(B)(i)(a)[.] The juvenile, [I.H.], had several
broken bones and the Court sees a correlation between the
mother's mental health and violent outburst and the
injuries sustained by [I.H.].
. . . .
That, subsequent to the filing of the original petition for
dependency-neglect other factors or issues arose which
demonstrate that return of the juveniles to the custody of
the mother is contrary to the juveniles' health, safety
or welfare and that despite the offer of appropriate family
services, the mother has manifested the incapacity or
indifference to remedy the subsequent issues or factors or
rehabilitate the parent's circumstances which prevent
return of the juvenile[s] to the custody of the parent.
A.C.A. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a). The mother
currently resides in a homeless shelter after surrendering a
good home. The mother has had inconsistent employment
throughout the case. The mother is prone to violent outbursts
and has been arrested twice for disorderly conduct since the
permanency planning hearing. The mother's mental health
is not stable at this time. The mother has an ongoing,
violent relationship with Felix Herrera and his family.
The
court found that termination was in the children's best
interests because the children were adoptable, and they faced
potential harm if returned to appellant's custody.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. This appeal
followed.
Our
standard of review in termination-of-parental-rights cases is
well settled; we review these cases de novo.[7] We will not
reverse the trial court's rulings unless its findings are
clearly erroneous.[8] In determining whether a finding is
clearly erroneous, we give due deference to the opportunity
of the trial court to judge the credibility of
witnesses.[9] In order to terminate parental rights, a
trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that
at least one statutory ground for termination exists and that
termination is in the child's best
interest.[10] 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.[11]
The
termination of parental rights is an extreme remedy and in
derogation of the natural rights of parents.[12] As a result,
there is a heavy burden placed on the party seeking to
terminate the relationship.[13] However, parental rights will
not be enforced ...