APPEAL
FROM THE CRAWFORD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 17JV-17-110]
HONORABLE MICHAEL MEDLOCK, JUDGE
Dusti
Standridge, for appellant Nathan Arnold.
Tina
Bowers Lee, Arkansas Public Defender Commission,
Dependency-Neglect Appellate Division, for appellant Jessica
Davis.
Ellen
K. Howard, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.
Chrestman Group, PLLC, by: Keith L. Chrestman, for minor
children.
BART
F. VIRDEN, JUDGE
In this
termination-of-parental-rights case, both parents, appellants
Nathan Arnold and Jessica Davis, separately appeal the
Crawford County Circuit Court's order terminating their
parental rights to NA (04/10/09) and ZA (03/02/12). The
parents challenge both the statutory grounds for termination
and the circuit court's best-interest determination. We
affirm.
I.
Relevant Facts
On May
22, 2017, the Arkansas Department of Human Services (the
"Department") filed a petition for emergency
custody and dependency-neglect contending that the removal of
ZA and NA from their parents' custody was necessary to
protect their health, safety, and welfare. Nathan was named
as the putative father. In the affidavit attached to the
petition, the Department asserted that on May 12, a
family-service worker went to Nathan and Jessica's home
and found severe environmental neglect. The family-service
worker saw wet and dry trash throughout the house, piles of
clothes, standing water in the bathroom sink, pet feces and
urine, old food in the refrigerator and on the countertops,
cigarette butts and ashes, and the home smelled strongly of
pet feces. Both parents were drug tested and were positive
for THC, barbiturates, opioids, benzodiazepine, and
Oxycontin, and they could not provide prescriptions for any
drugs. On May 15, the Department returned to reassess the
situation. There was little improvement, and the
family-service worker helped the parents remove some of the
clutter, including a mattress and a couch soaked in urine. On
May 18, a family-service worker returned to the home and saw
that the condition was unchanged. The parents tested positive
for the same drugs as before. ZA and NA were removed from
Nathan and Jessica's custody, and the Department placed a
seventy-two-hour emergency hold on the children.
The
circuit court entered an ex parte order for emergency custody
on May 22, 2017. On May 30, the court entered a
probable-cause and paternity order placing ZA and NA in the
Department's custody. The circuit court found that
emergency conditions necessitated the removal of the children
from the parents' custody, and it was contrary to their
welfare to be returned home. The court declared Nathan to be
the legal father. An amended petition for emergency custody
and dependency-neglect was entered on July 5 identifying
Nathan as the biological father of the children.
On July
6, the circuit court entered an adjudication order in which
it found that the allegations in the petition were true and
that the parties had stipulated to dependency-neglect because
of parental unfitness. The court found that Nathan, a
noncustodial parent, contributed to the dependency-neglect of
the children because he lived in the home and failed to
address the environmental neglect. The parents were ordered
to obey the orders of the court and comply with the case
plan. Specifically, the circuit court ordered them to submit
to drug-and-alcohol assessment and follow all
recommendations, obtain appropriate housing, maintain contact
with the Department and disclose all contact information,
exercise visitation, and display proper parenting. The
parents were ordered to pay child support.
On
October 5, 2017, the circuit court entered a review order in
which it found that safety concerns prevented both trial
placement with the parents and return of the children to
their custody. The circuit court found that Nathan and
Jessica were unwilling or unable to meet the children's
needs as evidenced by the continued environmental issues and
drug use. The circuit court found the Department had made
reasonable efforts to provide homemaking services,
family-service-worker contact, transportation, assistance
with Medicaid, psychological evaluations, counseling,
parenting classes, and drug screening. The circuit court
found that Jessica had minimally complied with the case plan.
Jessica was unemployed, continued to use drugs, failed to
complete either a drug assessment or a psychological
evaluation, failed to attend counseling, intermittently
visited with the children and displayed inappropriate
parenting techniques during visits, and she had not
maintained contact with the Department or cooperated with the
Department until recently. Nathan, who at the time of the
order was at an inpatient mental-health facility, was also
found to have minimally complied with the case plan. The
court found that Nathan was unemployed, continued to use
drugs, failed to complete a drug assessment or a
psychological evaluation, intermittently visited the children
and displayed inappropriate parenting techniques, and had not
maintained contact with the Department or cooperated with the
Department; also, "due to an incident during transport
to a visitation, the Department is no longer able to
transport the father to visitation, but continues to offer
transportation assistance in the form of gas cards." The
court found that the home was still filthy and that the
parents had not participated in services or made progress
toward reunification. The court noted that both parents had
scheduled drug-and-alcohol assessments and psychological
evaluations. The court found that "the parents need all
their financial resources to achieve or maintain
reunification" and that the Department was permitted to
petition the court to require payment for the parents'
failure to keep scheduled appointments.
On
January 18, 2017, the circuit court entered a review order in
which it found that the parents were still abusing drugs,
they had minimally complied with the case plan, and the
condition of the home was unchanged. The court found that the
Department had complied with the case plan and orders of the
court by providing homemaking services, family-service-worker
contact, transportation, counseling, parenting classes, and
drug screening. The court noted that Nathan was receiving
inpatient care at a mental-health facility. The parents were
ordered to comply with the case plan.
On
April 19, 2018, following a hearing, the circuit court
entered a permanency-planning order changing the goal of the
case to adoption. The court determined that Jessica had not
obtained appropriate housing, was unemployed, had not
completed a psychological evaluation, had not obtained photo
identification, had not attended drug treatment and continued
to use illegal drugs, and had not cooperated with the
Department. The court noted that she had begun attending
visitation more regularly. The court found that Nathan had
also failed to obtain employment or housing, failed to
complete his psychological evaluation, possessed illegal
substances, and had not cooperated with the ...