APPEAL
FROM THE MISSISSIPPI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CHICKASAWBA
DISTRICT [NO. 47BJV-17-126] HONORABLE RALPH WILSON, JR.,
JUDGE
Jennifer Oyler Olson, Arkansas Commission for Parent Counsel,
for appellant.
Andrew
Firth, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.
Chrestman Group, PLLC, by: Keith L. Chrestman, attorney ad
litem for minor child.
PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, JUDGE
Appellant
Jamie Carpenter appeals the order of the Mississippi County
Circuit Court terminating her parental rights to her son,
N.H. Carpenter contends that the circuit court clearly erred
in its findings regarding the statutory grounds for
termination, and she also challenges the court's finding
that termination was in N.H.'s best interest. We affirm.
I.
Factual and Procedural Background
The
Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) removed N.H. from
Carpenter's custody based on allegations of environmental
neglect. At that time, Carpenter and N.H. lived with
Carpenter's mother, whose home was "infested with
roaches and dogs." DHS initiated a dependency-neglect
proceeding, and the court adjudicated N.H.
dependent-neglected on December 14, 2017, on the basis of
environmental neglect. The court ordered Carpenter to comply
with its "standard welfare orders," which expressly
included obtaining and maintaining clean, safe, and stable
housing, and the goal of the case was established as
reunification.
The
court monitored the proceeding with two review hearings
conducted in March and July 2018. In March, the court noted
that Carpenter "does not have stable or appropriate
housing at this time and is living with a sister who has a
history with the Department." Specifically, the court
found that Carpenter "has moved at least three times
during this case and currently does not have stable or
appropriate housing." In July, the court once again
found Carpenter unfit, noting not only her housing
instability but also a positive drug screen. With respect to
DHS, the court found that it had complied with the case plan
and court orders in that it had provided, referred, or
otherwise offered services to Carpenter. The court also
specifically found that DHS had made reasonable efforts to
provide family services and finalize a permanency plan for
N.H.
The
court conducted a permanency-planning hearing in October
2018. The court found that Carpenter had substantially
complied with the case plan. The court noted, however, that
she had not maintained stable housing, had not provided DHS
with a current address, and had relocated multiple times
since March 2018. The court ordered Carpenter to obtain and
maintain appropriate housing and directed her to "work
diligently toward correcting the conditions that caused
removal and prevent return of the child to his home."
Once again, the court found that DHS had made reasonable
efforts to finalize a permanency plan, "specifically,
early intervention services, referrals for services,
parenting classes, transportation, supervised visitation,
[and] worker visits." The court, however, ordered DHS to
assist Carpenter with obtaining her birth certificate.
Ultimately, the court determined that the goal of the case
should be to authorize a plan for adoption with DHS filing a
petition for termination of parental rights.
DHS
filed its petition for termination of parental rights
alleging three statutory grounds: (1) twelve-month failure to
remedy, Ark. Code Ann. §
9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a) (Supp. 2017), citing
Carpenter's failure to obtain and maintain stable housing
throughout the pendency of the case; (2) subsequent other
factors, Ark. Code Ann. §
9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a), noting that in addition
to her inability to maintain stable housing, Carpenter had
several positive drug screens for methamphetamine and THC and
had been incarcerated briefly in September 2018; and (3)
aggravated circumstances, Ark. Code Ann. §
9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(ix)(a)(3)(B)(i), pointing out that
DHS had been providing services since November 2017 but that
Carpenter had nonetheless been unable to obtain stable and
appropriate housing to which N.H. could be returned. DHS
further alleged that the termination of Carpenter's
parental rights was in N.H.'s best interest.
After a
hearing on the petition, the circuit court found that DHS had
proved each of the three statutory grounds alleged in its
termination petition and that termination of Carpenter's
parental rights would be in N.H.'s best interest. On
appeal, Carpenter challenges both the court's
statutory-grounds and best-interest findings.
II.
Standard of Review
We
review termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo but will
not reverse the circuit court's ruling unless its
findings are clearly erroneous. Dade v. Ark. Dep't of
Human Servs., 2016 Ark.App. 443, 503 S.W.3d 96. 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. In determining whether a finding is
clearly erroneous, we have noted that in matters involving
the welfare of young children, we ...