APPEAL
FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, TENTH DIVISION [NO.
60JV-17-879] HONORABLE JOYCE WILLIAMS WARREN, JUDGE.
Tabitha McNulty, Arkansas Commission for Parent Counsel, for
appellant.
Callie
Corbyn, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.
Chrestman Group, PLLC, by: Keith L. Chrestman, attorney ad
litem for minor children.
MIKE
MURPHY, Judge.
Lisa
Whitehead appeals the Pulaski County Circuit Court's
order terminating her parental rights to her two children. On
appeal, she argues that the termination of her parental
rights was not in her children's best interest. We
affirm.
At the
time of the termination, one child was sixteen and the other
was thirteen. On appeal, the crux of Lisa's argument is
that termination was not in the children's best interest
because they did not want to be adopted and wanted to remain
together.
The
Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) became involved
with this family in June 2017, when the family's
apartment caught fire. While being interviewed, the children
disclosed that Lisa used drugs in front of them. Lisa
admitted using marijuana and sherm[1] and tested positive for PCP.
DHS opened a protective-services case and made referrals to
provide Lisa with services. The boys went to live with a
cousin, but when the cousin could no longer care for the
children, DHS took a seventy-two hour hold on the juveniles.
In
August 2017, the court found that probable cause existed to
continue custody with DHS, and the children were adjudicated
dependent-neglected the next month. The court found the
children were dependent-neglected and made specific findings
that the mother lacked stable housing, refused services, and
had positive drug screens for PCP and cocaine.
The
case progressed, and while Lisa had some compliance with the
court's orders throughout the case, she was never in full
compliance, and there was never a point in which the children
could be safely placed with her. On December 7, 2018, DHS
filed a petition seeking termination of Lisa's parental
rights, alleging the grounds of failure to remedy,
[2]
subsequent factors, [3] and aggravated
circumstances.[4]
On
February 27, 2019, the circuit court held a termination
hearing. It heard testimony from Lisa, who testified that at
the time of the hearing, she was staying with a friend, did
not have a job, had used PCP three weeks before the hearing,
and had not completed any of the drug-treatment classes. It
next heard testimony from the caseworker, Lauren Hill. Lauren
corroborated much of Lisa's testimony and further
testified that if the boys were returned to Lisa they would
be returned to a "very unstable, unpredictable, and
unsafe home environment." She said that it was extremely
important for the boys to maintain their sibling bond and
that they wanted to reunify with their mother. Lauren further
testified that the older boy was almost seventeen and his
consent would be required for any adoption. She stated that
DHS was unable to find a relative who would assume custody of
the boys. A maternal aunt was willing to take the boys, but
DHS was concerned about the size of her apartment and her
suspended license. The aunt did resolve her license issue,
but Lauren said there was a lack of movement regarding that
placement because the aunt was not returning Lauren's
calls.
An
adoption specialist also testified. She said that the boys
are adoptable and there are ninety-two families in the
database willing to adopt a sibling group such as theirs. She
also testified that when a child is unwilling to consent, DHS
moves forward with adoption for the other child alone. She
stated that there have been situations in which children do
not want to be adopted but ultimately do consent to an
adoption. She believed there were no barriers to these boys
being adopted.
At the
conclusion of the hearing, the court granted DHS's
petition to terminate Lisa's parental rights to her sons
on all three grounds pleaded by DHS. An order was entered to
that effect on March 25, 2019, and Lisa timely appealed. On
appeal, she argues that the termination of her parental
rights was not in the children's best interest.
Termination-of-parental
rights cases are reviewed de novo. Mitchell v. Ark.
Dep't of Human Servs., 2013 Ark.App. 715, at 1, 430
S.W.3d 851, 852. The termination-of-parental-rights analysis
is twofold; it requires the circuit court to find that the
parent is unfit and that termination is in the best interest
of the child. Fisher v. Ark. Dep't of Human
Servs., 2019 Ark.App. 39, at 4, 569 S.W.3d 886, 888. The
first step requires proof of one or more of the nine
enumerated statutory grounds for termination. Id.
The second step, a best-interest determination, ...