APPEAL
FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT
[NO. 66FJV-15-457] HONORABLE LEIGH ZUERKER, JUDGE
Tabitha McNulty, Arkansas Public Defender Commission, for
appellant.
Callie
Corbyn, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.
Chrestman Group, PLLC, by: Keith L. Chrestman, attorney ad
litem for minor children.
Larry
D. Vaught, Judge.
Jennifer
Wright appeals the order entered by the Sebastian County
Circuit Court terminating her parental rights to three of her
children, BW (born April 11, 2003), AW (born May 31, 2005),
and EW (born June 30, 2007). On appeal, Wright contends that
the circuit court clearly erred in finding that statutory
grounds supported termination and that termination was in her
children's best interest. We affirm.
On
September 13, 2015, the Arkansas Department of Human Services
(DHS) exercised a seventy-two-hour hold on Wright's four
children-JR (born December 30, 2000), BW, AW, and
EW[1]-based on allegations that Wright slapped
JR in the face during an argument about a lack of food in the
home. DHS filed a petition for emergency custody alleging
that the juveniles were dependent-neglected due to abuse,
neglect, and parental unfitness. The affidavit of a DHS
caseworker accompanying the petition stated that there was
very little food in the home, Wright admitted striking JR,
Wright was arrested for third-degree domestic assault, and
she admitted using marijuana. The circuit court entered an ex
parte order of emergency custody.
Following
an adjudication hearing, the circuit court found that the
children were dependent-neglected due to neglect and parental
unfitness. The circuit court continued the custody of the
children with DHS and established reunification as the goal
of the case. Wright was ordered to maintain stable housing,
income, and transportation; complete parenting classes;
complete a drug-and-alcohol assessment and follow any
recommendations from that assessment; submit to random drug
screens; resolve her criminal issues; visit the children
regularly; and take her medication as directed.
Review-hearing
orders were entered in December 2015 and May and August 2016.
In these orders, the circuit court found that Wright was
complying with the case plan in that she had maintained
stable housing, income, and transportation; completed
parenting classes; visited BW, AW, and EW; submitted to
random drug testing and two hair-follicle tests; resolved her
criminal issues; and attended a psychological evaluation. She
was ordered to take her medications, continue counseling, and
obtain her driver's license. In these orders, DHS was
found to have made reasonable efforts to achieve the goal of
reunification by referring Wright for a psychological
evaluation and a drug-and-alcohol assessment; referring the
children for counseling and PACE evaluations; and providing
clothing vouchers, transportation, medical services, and
visitation. Reunification remained the goal of the case.
A
permanency-planning order was entered by the court on
September 27, 2016, wherein the court found that Wright had a
home, income, and transportation; completed parenting
classes; attended a drug-and-alcohol assessment; attended
group therapy; and submitted to drug screens. The court
further found that Wright needed to obtain a driver's
license, continue group therapy, visit the children, take her
medication as directed, and continue participating in
JR's therapy. The court stated that Wright needed
budgeting assistance and ordered DHS to assist with that
need.
In
December 2016, DHS recommended that Wright have a trial home
placement with BW, AW, and EW. In February 2017, the circuit
court entered a fifteen-month review order wherein the court
found that Wright had housing, income, a driver's
license, and transportation; tested negative on drug screens;
and completed parenting classes and a drug-and-alcohol
assessment. Wright was directed to participate in counseling
with JR as recommended and obtain tags for her vehicle. DHS
was ordered to assist with obtaining Wright's medication.
Reunification remained the goal of the case, but the court
also found that concurrent planning in the form of Another
Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA) was appropriate
for JR. The circuit court found that DHS had made reasonable
efforts to finalize a permanency plan for BW, AW, and EW.
In an
April 2017 review order, the circuit court ended the trial
home placement of AW because of concerns about AW's
behavior and the risks it posed for both her and Wright if AW
remained in the home. The court found that AW and JR should
continue in the custody of DHS but that BW and EW would
remain in Wright's custody. The circuit court determined
the case goal was "family preservation" for BW and
EW, reunification for AW, and APPLA for JR. The court found
that DHS had made reasonable efforts with the services and
that Wright was in compliance with the case plan because she
had a driver's license, transportation, income, and
housing. However, the court noted that "it would like to
see more stable housing and income long term."
In July
2017, the circuit court entered a second permanency-planning
order finding Wright had legal custody of BW and EW, but the
children's aunt, Vicky Granlun, had physical custody of
them because Wright did not have housing. JR and AW were
ordered to remain in the custody of DHS. The goal of the case
remained the same, and DHS was found to have made reasonable
efforts to provide family services to achieve the goal of
reunification, including the additional services of a trial
home placement, home visits, and homemaking services.
In
October 2017, the circuit court entered a review order
finding that Wright did not have stable housing, income, or
transportation. The court continued legal custody of BW and
EW with Wright but gave Granlun physical custody of them. The
circuit court also found that DHS had made reasonable efforts
to achieve permanency goals and APPLA. The court ordered
...