Page 60
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 61
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.
OPINION
LARRY
D. 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 childrens 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
Bartons 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.
Page 62
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 Bartons 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 caseworkers 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
childrens 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 DHSs
custody of his siblings. An ex parte order of emergency
custody was entered the same day. A probable-cause order was
entered on ...