APPEAL
FROM THE POINSETT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 56JV-15-128]
HONORABLE RALPH WILSON, JR., JUDGE
Leah
Lanford, Arkansas Public Defender Commission, for appellant.
Andrew
Firth, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee. Chrestman
Group, PLLC, by: Keith L. Chrestman, attorney ad litem for
minor children.
LARRYD. VAUGHT, JUDGE
Patricia
Barton appeals the December 31, 2018, order entered by the
Poinsett County Circuit Court terminating her parental rights
to her three children, JB (born June 5, 2008), ZS (born April
8, 2013), and BS (born April 12, 2017). On appeal, Barton
contends that the circuit court clearly erred in finding that
statutory grounds supported termination and that termination
was in the children's best interest. She also contends
that the court abused its discretion in admitting her
psychological evaluation into evidence. We affirm.
On
December 10, 2015, the Arkansas Department of Human Services
(DHS) filed a petition for emergency custody and
dependency-neglect alleging that JB and ZS were
dependent-neglected due to environmental neglect. A DHS
caseworker attached an affidavit to the petition stating that
Barton's home had no heat, and it was fifty-three degrees
inside the home; there were holes in the floor; there was no
hot water and no refrigerator; broken windows were covered
with plastic and boards; there were exposed wires in the
electrical outlets; the ceiling was broken and was falling
through in some places; there was no working tub; and the
toilet had been broken into pieces. The caseworker further
stated that DHS had a history with the Barton family dating
back to November 2008 that included protective-services cases
in 2013 and 2014. The circuit court entered an ex parte order
for emergency custody of JB and ZS on December 14, 2015, and
a probable-cause order was entered on December 16.
The
court adjudicated JB and ZS dependent-neglected on the basis
of environmental neglect, and the goal of the case was
reunification. Following a review hearing, an order was
entered on April 12, 2016, wherein the court found that
Barton had complied with the case plan, and the court
authorized a trial placement. On June 13, the court entered
an order returning JB and ZS to Barton's custody, closed
the dependency-neglect case, and opened a protective-services
case.
However,
on August 22, DHS filed a second petition for emergency
custody of JB and ZS, in which it alleged environmental
neglect. The caseworker's affidavit accompanying this
petition stated that Barton had no electricity in her home
and had been evicted for failure to pay rent. Barton reported
that she planned to move in with her neighbor, whom she
planned to marry, but he had locked her and the children out
of his apartment. She had no alternative housing plan. The
court entered an ex parte order for emergency custody the
same day. Later, a probable-cause order was entered, and on
October 5, the court entered an adjudication order finding JB
and ZS dependent-neglected due to environmental neglect.
A
January 11, 2017 review-hearing order stated that Barton
complied with parts of the case plan but not others. She
failed to visit the children on a regular basis and to
maintain appropriate housing. The order stated that she
reported she had been living with her neighbor, but because
he abused her, she had been staying in a shelter for abused
women. Another review-hearing order was entered on April 10.
This order found that Barton had completed the psychological
evaluation but lacked stable housing and struggled with the
children's behavior during visitation.
BS was
born on April 12, 2017, and on April 24, DHS filed a third
petition for emergency custody and dependency-neglect
alleging that BS was dependent-neglected based on DHS's
custody of his siblings. An ex parte order of emergency
custody was entered the same day. A probable-cause order was
entered on April 27, and an adjudication order was entered on
May 25, finding BS dependent-neglected.
On
September 28, the court entered a permanency-planning order
finding that Barton had been complying with the case plan and
the court's orders and was making significant and
measurable progress toward reunification. The court further
found that placement of the children with Barton would occur
no later than three months from September 22, 2017. A
fifteen-month-review order was entered on December 29,
wherein the court found that Barton had complied with the
case plan, yet the court authorized a plan for adoption.
On
March 22, 2018, DHS filed a petition for termination of
parental rights alleging that termination was in the
children's best interest and that two statutory grounds
for termination existed: (1) subsequent factors, Arkansas
Code Annotated section 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a)
(Supp. 2017) and (2) aggravated circumstances, Arkansas Code
Annotated section 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(ix)(a)(3)(A)
& (B).
At the
termination hearing, Kelli Cole, a DHS foster-care and
protective-services supervisor, testified that both JB and ZS
had been taken into DHS custody in December 2015 because of
environmental neglect and inadequate supervision. Cole stated
that JB and ZS were returned to Barton in a trial placement
in February 2016; however, DHS received hotline calls that
the children were leaving home without Barton's
knowledge. One of the children was found by the police at a
store. Cole testified that DHS continued to provide services,
and in June 2016, an order was entered returning custody of
JB and ZS to Barton. However, following a home visit in
August 2016, DHS found that there was no electricity in the
home and that Barton had been evicted. JB and ZS were removed
again from Barton's custody. Cole said that BS was taken
into DHS care in April 2017 because his siblings had been
adjudicated dependent-neglected.
Cole
further testified that Barton had completed all the services
DHS offered her. She participated in two parenting classes,
watched the video "The Clock is Ticking," visited
the children, and submitted to a psychological evaluation and
therapy. Cole stated that despite these services, Barton has
not "overcome being an ineffective parent" and is
not "able to demonstrate the basic parenting skills
right now." Cole said that Barton's primary problem
was her inability to tend to all three children at one time.
Cole said that the children would be subject to potential
harm in Barton's custody if the boys got out of the home
without her knowledge: "She has not exhibited the skill
set that shows that she's capable of keeping these kids
safe." Cole also noted that the psychological evaluation
recommended that Barton could not care for the children by
herself. Cole testified that Barton provided a list of
thirteen people she said could help her, but DHS was able to
contact only four of them, and none were ...