Page 103
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 104
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 105
APPEAL
FROM THE GREENE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 28JV-16-314],
HONORABLE BARBARA HALSEY, JUDGE
Janet
Lawrence, for appellant Alfredo Hernandez.
Dusti
Standridge, for appellant Jennifer Hernandez.
Callie
Corbyn, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.
Chrestman
Group, PLLC, by: Keith L. Chrestman, attorney ad litem for
minor children.
OPINION
BART F.
VIRDEN, Judge
Page 106
The
Greene County Circuit Court terminated the parental rights of
appellants Jennifer Hernandez and Alfredo Hernandez to their
two children, A.H. and C.H. The parents have filed separate
briefs on appeal. Jennifer challenges each ground for
termination and argues that termination was not in the
childrens best interest. She also argues that the Arkansas
Department of Human Services (DHS) failed to make reasonable
efforts to reunify her family. Alfredo argues that he was
deprived of his due-process rights because he did not have
the benefit of counsel until the goal was changed to
termination of parental rights. He also contends that DHS did
not provide reasonable and meaningful services to him and
that there was insufficient evidence that termination was in
the childrens best interest. We affirm.
I.
Procedural History
An
affidavit attached to a petition for emergency custody and
dependency-neglect filed by DHS indicates that a
seventy-two-hour hold was taken on A.H. and C.H. on December
16, 2016, because Jennifer had appeared in juvenile court
with her younger son and tested positive for buprenorphine,
methamphetamine, amphetamines, benzodiazepines
(prescription), and THC.[1] Jennifer went to DHS, contesting
the drug-screen results from juvenile court, and a drug
screen performed by a DHS supervisor was positive for illicit
drugs. The affidavit also reveals that DHS first had contact
with the family on November 3, 2009 (true referral for
inadequate supervision); September 3, 2010 (true referral for
threat of harm); November 25, 2009, through December 8, 2010
(successfully completed protective-services case); August 10,
2016 ("inactive referral— unable to locate—
for sexual contact"); and October 6, 2016 (true referral
for educational neglect).
An ex
parte order for emergency custody was entered on December 19,
2016. In an order entered February 7, 2017, the trial court
found probable cause that the emergency conditions that
necessitated the childrens removal from the parents custody
continued to exist. Both parents were ordered to comply with
standard welfare orders, including that they cooperate with
DHS, comply with the case plan, and obey all court orders;
view "The Clock is Ticking" video; remain drug free
and submit to random drug screens with the understanding that
any refusal to comply or failure to produce a specimen within
one hour would be considered a positive result; provide proof
of any prescribed medications at the time of the random drug
screens; participate in and complete parenting classes;
obtain and maintain clean, safe, and stable housing with
utilities; allow DHS access to their homes; obtain and
maintain stable employment or provide sufficient income to
support the family; provide DHS with a budget indicating
sufficient income or resources to meet the needs of the
family; and maintain contact
Page 107
with the caseworker and immediately notify DHS of any change
in address, contact information, marital status, or
employment status. In addition, Jennifer was ordered to
submit to a drug-and-alcohol assessment, to follow the
recommendations of the assessment, and to provide a copy of
the assessment results to DHS.
On
February 10, 2017, A.H. and C.H. were adjudicated
dependent-neglected by stipulation of the parents.
Specifically, the children were found to have been
inadequately supervised due to Jennifers drug use. The trial
court set the goal of the case as reunification and approved
DHSs case plan. The parents were again ordered to comply
with the standard welfare orders, and Jennifer was required
to submit to a drug-and-alcohol assessment. The trial court
further ordered that Alfredo was to have no contact with the
children for one month. DHS was ordered to press the Arkansas
State Police Crimes Against Children Division and the
Jonesboro Police Department to investigate the sexual-abuse
allegations against Alfredo involving A.H. Moreover, the
trial court noted that it had inquired about Alfredos
indigency and determined that an attorney could not be
appointed for him.
A
hearing was held on March 29, 2017, to review the no-contact
order that had been entered against Alfredo. In a
limited-review order entered April 27, 2017, the trial court
noted that Alfredo had not appeared at the hearing to contest
the no-contact order; therefore, the trial court left the
order in place.
A
review order was entered on June 22, 2017, in which the trial
court continued the goal of reunification and found that DHS
had made reasonable efforts to provide family services. A
permanency-planning order was entered on January 4, 2018, in
which the trial court continued the goal of reunification.
The trial court gave the parents three more months to work
toward the goal of reunification, not because the
parents had made significant measurable progress, but because
the trial court was not satisfied with DHSs provision of
services to the parents. The trial court also found that
Jennifer had not provided proof of her attendance at NA/AA
meetings and had not completed drug-treatment classes
recommended by her drug-and-alcohol assessment. The trial
court also expressed concern that Jennifer had not allowed
DHS access to her home. Further, the trial court found that
Alfredo had not complied with the case plan and court orders.
A
fifteen-month review order was entered May 11, 2018, in which
the trial court changed the goal of the case to adoption. The
trial court concluded that both parents had not complied with
the case plan and court orders. Specifically, the trial court
found that Jennifer had not presented proof of an appropriate
home; that she had not provided proof of her attendance at
NA/AA meetings; that there was no evidence that she had
remedied the cause for the childrens removal from her
custody; and that she had attended only twenty out of
thirty-six recommended drug-treatment classes. As for
Alfredo, the trial court noted that, because he had not
appeared at the hearing on the no-contact order, he had been
given no visitation with his children throughout the case.
The trial court appointed counsel to represent each parent.
On
August 6, 2018, DHS filed a petition to terminate Jennifers
and Alfredos parental rights to A.H. and C.H. A termination
hearing was held over the course of several days: November 26
and December 6, 2018; and January 11, 2019.
II.
Termi ...