APPEAL
FROM THE CRAWFORD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 17JV-17-173]
HONORABLE MICHAEL MEDLOCK, JUDGE
Tabitha McNulty, Arkansas Public Defender Commission, for
appellant.
Ellen
K. Howard, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee. Chrestman
Group, PLLC, by: Keith L. Chrestman, attorney ad litem for
minor children.
LARRYD. VAUGHT, JUDGE
Patricia
Bratton appeals the Crawford County Circuit Court's order
terminating her parental rights to her two children, E.B. and
N.B. She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to
support the court's finding that termination was in the
children's best interest. We affirm.
The
Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) began
investigating Bratton for child maltreatment when N.B. tested
positive for amphetamines at birth in May 2017. Following the
birth, DHS could not locate Bratton and her children until
September 18, 2017. When DHS made contact with Bratton, she
appeared to be hungover, was slurring her words, and had
bloodshot eyes. She was living with her boyfriend, Jack
Thomas. A drug screen administered to Bratton on September 18
revealed abnormal results based on its "lack of
temperature." DHS was unable to observe N.B. that day
because she was being cared for by a babysitter who was
identified as Bratton's friend, Meadow. Bratton's
older daughter, E.B., told DHS that she wanted to go live
with her "Nana." DHS set a follow-up meeting for
September 20, 2017.
Bratton
was an hour late for the September 20 meeting and failed to
bring E.B. and N.B. as instructed. Bratton tested positive
for methamphetamine on this date. Bratton then took DHS
employees to observe the children, who were again at
Meadow's house. The employees found Meadow's home to
be extremely hot. Meadow and two men were frantically trying
to clean the house and shut doors to various rooms. DHS
informed Bratton that Meadow was not an appropriate
babysitter. DHS scheduled a follow-up meeting for October 10,
2017.
Before
that meeting occurred, DHS was informed on September 22, that
E.B. had been coming to school hungry and with head lice and
that she had been touching herself inappropriately at school.
E.B. was absent from school on the day the report was made to
DHS. On the same day, law enforcement requested DHS's
assistance because N.B. had again been left at Meadow's
home. When DHS arrived at Meadow's house, they found N.B.
left alone in the care of a man named Austin Uselton, who was
under the influence of drugs at the time, had drug
paraphernalia around N.B., and had pending drug-related
criminal charges.
DHS
then exercised an emergency hold on both children, and the
circuit court signed an ex parte order for emergency custody
a few days later. On October 2, 2017, the circuit court held
a probable-cause hearing at which it found that removal was
warranted and that it was necessary for the children to
remain in DHS custody. On November 2, the court adjudicated
the children dependent-neglected following the parties'
stipulation as to Bratton's parental unfitness due to her
continued use of alcohol and drugs and her history of leaving
the children with inappropriate caretakers. The court found
DHS's allegations in its original petition to be true and
correct, and it found that Roger Blasingame is the legal
father of E.B. The court set concurrent case goals of
reunification and relative placement. It ordered Bratton to
comply with the court's orders and follow the case plan.
On
February 1, 2018, the court held a review hearing and found
that both children had been placed together in foster care
and that Bratton had only partially complied with the case
plan. She visited the children regularly and maintained
contact with DHS but had tested positive on drug screens and
missed counseling sessions. The court also had concerns about
Bratton's housing because she lived with unknown,
unrelated individuals. The court ordered her to complete
parenting classes, follow all recommendations resulting from
her drug-and-alcohol assessment, submit to random drug
screens and hair-follicle tests, obtain and maintain stable
housing, obtain lawful employment, provide proof of income,
maintain reliable transportation, visit the children
regularly, demonstrate appropriate parenting skills, and
cooperate with DHS.
On May
10, 2018, the court held a second review hearing. Again, the
court found that Bratton had only partially complied with the
case plan and court orders. She still lived with
inappropriate individuals who continued to test positive for
drugs. She also continued to miss counseling sessions.
Although Bratton was in inpatient drug treatment at the time
of the hearing, the court found that she had only minimally
benefited from the goals of the case plan and had made very
slow progress working the case plan. The court ordered that
Bratton comply with the case plan and court orders, and it
continued the case goals as previously set. The court also
warned Bratton that refusal to submit to drug screens or
failure to provide a sample within thirty minutes would
result in a screening deemed to be positive. The court
ordered Blasingame to present himself to DHS upon his release
from prison and ordered that Blasingame was to have no
visitation with the children until that occurred.
On
August 16, 2018, the court held a permanency-planning hearing
at which it again found that Bratton had only partially
complied with the case plan and court orders. Bratton had
completed an inpatient drug treatment program, completed
parenting classes, recently obtained employment, and had
stable housing, but had also submitted drug screens with
abnormal temperatures, tested positive for methamphetamine on
a hair-follicle screen prior to her inpatient treatment,
allowed E.B. to visit Blasingame in direct violation of court
orders, returned the children to foster care with lice after
visitation, and had not obtained and maintained reliable
transportation. The court granted Bratton's request for
another hair-follicle test and ordered her not to alter her
hair in any way prior to that exam. The court granted Bratton
an additional three months to work toward the goal of
reunification. It also ordered her to attend family
counseling with E.B. and abstain from all illegal substances.
Bratton subsequently failed to attend the second
hair-follicle test that the court had authorized.
On
October 25, DHS filed a petition to terminate Bratton's
parental rights.[1]Following a hearing, the court found that
Bratton had failed to remedy the issues causing removal of
the children, had failed to provide meaningful support for
the children or maintain meaningful contact with them, and
had subjected them to aggravated circumstances. The court
also found that termination was in the children's best
interest after considering adoptability and the potential
harm that might result if they were returned to Bratton's
custody. This appeal follows.
Termination-of-parental-rights
cases are reviewed de novo. Pine v. Ark. Dep't of
Human Servs., 2010 Ark.App. 781, at 9, 379 S.W.3d 703,
708. Grounds for termination of parental rights must be
proved by clear and convincing evidence, which is that degree
of proof that will produce in the finder of fact a firm
conviction of the allegation sought to be established.
Id., 379 S.W.3d at 708. The appellate inquiry is
whether the circuit court's finding that the disputed
fact was proved by clear and convincing evidence is clearly
erroneous. Id., 379 S.W.3d at 708. A finding is
clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support
it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.
Id., 379 S.W.3d at 708. In resolving the clearly
erroneous question, we give due regard to the opportunity of
the circuit court to judge the credibility of witnesses.
Id., 379 S.W.3d at 708. Termination of parental
rights is an extreme remedy and in derogation of a
parent's natural rights; however, parental rights will
not be enforced to the detriment or destruction of the health
and well-being of the child. Id., 379 ...