Opinion
CV-22-267
11-09-2022
JESSICA LLOYD AND BOBBY LLOYD APPELLANTS v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR CHILDREN APPELLEES
James & Streit, by: Jonathan R. Streit, for separate appellant Jessica Lloyd. Dusti Standridge, for separate appellant Bobby Lloyd. Ellen K. Howard, Ark. Dep't of Human Services, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee. Dana McClain, attorney ad litem for minor children.
APPEAL FROM THE YELL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT [NO. 75SJV-20-4] HONORABLE TERRY SULLIVAN, JUDGE
James & Streit, by: Jonathan R. Streit, for separate appellant Jessica Lloyd.
Dusti Standridge, for separate appellant Bobby Lloyd.
Ellen K. Howard, Ark. Dep't of Human Services, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.
Dana McClain, attorney ad litem for minor children.
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Jessica Lloyd and Bobby Lloyd bring separate appeals from the Yell County Circuit Court's order terminating their parental rights to their children. On appeal, Jessica and Bobby each challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting statutory grounds for termination and the circuit court's finding that termination was in the children's best interest. We affirm the circuit court's termination order as to both appellants.
This case started on September 2, 2018, when the Arkansas Department of Human Services ("DHS") began a Garrett's Law investigation after Jessica and MC1 (minor child 1) tested positive for methamphetamine following MC1's birth. On October 10, DHS removed MC1 from the custody of her parents, Jessica and Bobby Lloyd. MC2 (minor child 2) was left in Jessica's physical and legal custody, but DHS maintained a protective-services case, offering counseling referrals, drug-and-alcohol assessments and treatment, monthly home visits, and a psychological evaluation. When DHS contacted Jessica on May 1, 2019, Jessica stated they were working to keep a "roof over their head." On July 1, DHS received a call from the Pike County Police Department, stating that Jessica had been arrested on warrants and that when she and the male driver were pulled over, MC2 was not secured in a car safety seat. MC2 was released to Bobby's custody. At a hearing on July 19, Jessica and Bobby were ordered to present MC2 to DHS on July 22. Jessica and Bobby presented MC2 to the Yell County DHS office as instructed. Although MC2 appeared to be clean and appropriately dressed, in order to ensure his safety, DHS exercised a seventy-two-hour hold on him because Jessica and Bobby did not have a stable home address, and they admittedly left the state throughout the previous three months and without maintaining contact with DHS. At the time of the hold, "the parents became aggressive and irate, making threats to kill themselves and the caseworker. Jessica grabbed [MC2] and attempted to flee from the office however Bobby talked her into giving him the child which he handed to the caseworker."
Jessica and Bobby consented to the termination of their parental rights to MC1, a special-needs child. MC1 has since been adopted.
The parental rights of Larry Parker, MC2's biological father, were also terminated on the abandonment ground. He is not a party to this appeal.
Following the probable-cause hearing held on July 26, the circuit court entered an order finding that probable cause for MC2's removal existed and continued to exist. The circuit court ordered Jessica and Bobby to submit to drug screens; watch the video "The Clock is Ticking"; complete parenting classes; obtain and maintain stable and appropriate housing; obtain and maintain stable and gainful employment; attend counseling; submit to a psychological evaluation and follow the recommendations thereof; submit to a drug-and-alcohol assessment and follow the recommendations thereof; keep DHS advised of address and phone number; and submit to homemaker services. Additionally, Jessica was also ordered to attend NA/AA meetings and to resolve all criminal issues. DHS was ordered to refer Bobby for paternity testing.
Shortly thereafter, on August 23, Jessica gave birth to MC3 (minor child 3). DHS did not remove MC3 from Jessica and Bobby's custody at that time.
An adjudication hearing was held on October 18. Upon stipulation of the parties, the circuit court adjudicated MC2 dependent-neglected; specifically, the court found that MC2 was at substantial risk of serious harm due to neglect and the parents' failure to provide a safe and appropriate home and the parents' failure to obtain necessary dental and medical treatment for MC2. The goal of the case was established as reunification with a fit and appropriate parent. Jessica and Bobby were ordered to comply with the case plan and the previous orders of the court.
At the January 17, 2020 review hearing, the circuit court found that the paternity-testing results showed that Bobby was not the biological father of MC2. Jessica revealed that she believed Larry Parker is MC2's biological father. Jessica also stated that she and Bobby were married three days prior to the review hearing. The circuit court found that although MC2 had been in a trial home placement with Jessica since October 2019 and ordered the trial home placement to continue, it was contrary to MC2's welfare to return him to Jessica's custody. The circuit court found Jessica compliant with the case plan and orders of the court. Because he was found not to be the biological father of MC2, Bobby was dismissed as a party from the case. However, recognizing that he is Jessica's husband and MC2's stepfather, Bobby was ordered to "continue to participate in the services and the case plan." The goal of the case remained reunification with a fit and willing relative.
On March 16, 2020, an order was entered to separate the cases involving MC1 and MC2. The court found that the two juveniles are "on two very different courses. The parents' rights have been terminated in regard to [MC1] and her goal is adoption. Parental rights have not been terminated in regard to [MC2] and his goal his reunification with a fit and appropriate parent."
At the June 19 review hearing, the circuit court ordered MC2 to remain in the custody of DHS but ordered that he continue on trial home placement with Jessica. Jessica was again found to be in compliance with the case plan and orders of the court. The goal of the case continued to be reunification. The circuit court additionally ordered: "The juvenile is to be enrolled in Friendship Pediatric Services. If insurance for the juvenile is taken care of in a reasonable time, the Court will sign an order to return legal custody to the mother with the approval of attorney ad litem."
On August 12, Jessica gave birth to MC4 (minor child 4). DHS did not remove MC4 from Jessica and Bobby's custody at that time.
A permanency-planning hearing was held on September 18. At the hearing, the circuit court found that MC2 has been on successful trial home placement with Jessica. Jessica was found to be in compliance with the case plan, and the goal of the case remained reunification. The court specifically ordered: "[Jessica's] children shall be in daycare by October 12, 2020 or the Court will conduct a Review Hearing and order [DHS] to pay case subsidy for provision of daycare."
Another review hearing was held on November 20. Jessica was again found to be in compliance with the case plan. The circuit court awarded Jessica temporary custody of MC2. The case was ordered to remain open with a goal of reunification. The court ordered Jessica "to keep the OPTUM appointment and get the children in daycare."
The family home burned down on January 4, 2021, and was a total loss. DHS caseworker Anna Noakes completed a visit to the Budget Inn located in Russellville on January 6. Jessica and Bobby both tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamine. They were warned that the children would be removed if they tested positive again. On March 1, Noakes received an email from a secondary caseworker stating that during a home visit conducted on February 9, both Jessica and Bobby admitted to methamphetamine use again. The caseworker further advised that both parents were unemployed, the children were dirty, and Jessica was noncompliant with efforts to provide services. At a February 10 home visit, Jessica cursed the caseworker for being at her home so early; Jessica reported that Bobby had obtained a new job and was asleep and would not submit to a drug screen; the caseworker observed mattresses without bedding, a crib with the mattress standing upright in it, and clothing scattered throughout the rooms; the caseworker noted concerns of physical abuse by Bobby in relation to MC3; and it was noted that the family was living in a known drug house, so if the children were to be removed, DHS would require police assistance.
On March 4, caseworkers Noakes and Thomas, along with officers from the Glenwood Police Department, arrived at the home to place a hold on the children. Upon their arrival, numerous people came out of the house and left. Police went inside and retrieved Jessica, Bobby, and the children from the home and explained to the parents that the children were being removed due to the parents' drug use and neglect. Both Jessica and Bobby repeatedly threatened to kill the caseworkers and screamed obscenities at them during the removal. Bobby was behaving erratically and kicked the window out of the patrol car. At the time DHS exercised emergency custody of MC2, MC3, and MC4, they were dirty, inadequately dressed, and had numerous bug bites, and there were concerns of burns and bruises. MC3 also "had numerous ringworms."
A probable-cause hearing was held on March 4. The court found-and the parties stipulated-that there was probable cause that the emergency conditions that necessitated removal of the juveniles from the custody of the parents continued so that it was necessary that the juveniles continue in the custody of DHS and that it was contrary to the welfare of the juveniles to be returned home. Jessica and Bobby were ordered to complete a drug-and-alcohol assessment, complete a psychological evaluation, and comply with the recommendations.
The juveniles submitted to a hair-follicle test on March 12. The tests revealed that MC2 and MC3 were positive for methamphetamine and amphetamines.
An adjudication hearing was held on April 16. The circuit court found-and the parties stipulated-that the juveniles were dependent-neglected as defined in the Arkansas Juvenile Code based on parental unfitness due to drug use and homelessness and "based upon the parents allowing the juveniles' exposure to methamphetamines while they were in the custody of the parents." The goal of the case was set as reunification. Jessica and Bobby were both ordered to obtain and maintain safe, stable and appropriate housing; obtain and maintain income sufficient to support the family; obtain and maintain safe and reliable transportation; comply with random drug screens, hair-follicle tests, and alcohol swabs; attend and complete a drug-and-alcohol assessment and comply with the recommendations thereof; attend and complete a psychological evaluation and comply with the recommendations thereof; attend and complete parenting classes and demonstrate the skills learned at visitations; resolve any and all pending criminal issues and refrain from further illegal activity; keep DHS apprised of their current contact information and any changes; keep DHS apprised of any significant life events; and visit the juveniles as recommended.
On May 25, Bobby filed an acknowledgement of paternity certifying that he is MC3's biological father.
On June 14, DHS filed a petition seeking to terminate Jessica's and Bobby's parental rights, alleging multiple statutory grounds-failure to remedy, subsequent factors, and aggravated circumstances-and stating that termination was in the best interest of the children. The termination-of-parental-rights hearing was held on September 17. Following the hearing, the circuit court entered an order terminating Jessica's parental rights to MC2, MC3, and MC4. Bobby's parental rights to MC3 and MC4 were terminated. Both Jessica and Bobby timely appealed from the termination order.
This court reviews termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo. 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. The appellate inquiry is whether the circuit court's finding that the disputed fact was proved by clear and convincing evidence is clearly erroneous. 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. In resolving the clearly erroneous question, we give due regard to the opportunity of the circuit court to judge the credibility of witnesses.
Dinkins v. Ark. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (2001).
Tillman v. Ark. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 2015 Ark.App. 119.
Id.
Id.
Id.
To terminate parental rights, a circuit court must find by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the best interest of the juvenile, taking into consideration (1) the likelihood that the juvenile will be adopted if the termination petition is granted and (2) the potential harm, specifically addressing the effect on the health and safety of the child, caused by returning the child to the custody of the parent. The circuit court must also find by clear and convincing evidence that one or more statutory grounds for termination exist. Proof of only one statutory ground is sufficient to terminate parental rights. 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. The intent behind the termination-of-parental-rights statute is to provide permanency in a child's life when it is not possible to return the child to the family home because it is contrary to the child's health, safety, or welfare, and a return to the family home cannot be accomplished in a reasonable period of time as viewed from the child's perspective.
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(A)(i) & (ii) (Supp. 2021).
Tillman, supra.
Id.
We will address Jessica's separate appeal first. On appeal, she challenges the circuit court's finding that sufficient evidence supports the statutory grounds for termination and that termination of her parental rights was in the children's best interest.
The circuit court terminated Jessica's parental rights on all three grounds alleged in the termination petition: failure to remedy; subsequent factors; and aggravated circumstances. Although the circuit court terminated Jessica's parental rights on multiple statutory grounds, only one ground is necessary to affirm the termination.
Redden v. Ark. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 2019 Ark.App. 539, 589 S.W.3d 401.
A circuit court may terminate parental rights on the basis of the aggravated-circumstances ground if there is little likelihood that further services will result in successful reunification. A finding of aggravated circumstances does not require that DHS prove that meaningful services toward reunification were provided. With regard to the aggravated-circumstances ground, in its termination order, the circuit court found that
See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(ix) (a)(A)-(B)(i).
Cloninger v. Ark. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 2020 Ark.App. 282
there is little likelihood that services to the family will result in successful reunification; as shown above despite the myriad of services given to the family throughout the last two years, the parents have either failed to take advantage of these services, or failed to benefit from the services they completed, and have instead continued their unstable, dangerous and drug fueled lifestyle, which prior [to] the juveniles being removed, they forced the juveniles to endure. The parents are unapologetic, and unable to admit they have made a mistake. They instead threaten the people surrounding the children, scaring the children and causing even further harm. There are no services that can force these parents to have the sense to see they are hurting their children. The parents have complied with previous drug treatment, yet continue to use, have complied with counseling, yet continue to harm their children by their behaviors. There are no other services that can be offered to fix this, or to make these parents safe for any children.
Despite the extensive evidence of Jessica's continued drug use, unstable lifestyle, and failure to comply with the case plan and court orders, Jessica argues that the circuit court clearly erred in terminating her parental rights under the aggravated-circumstances ground because DHS failed to offer appropriate services to reunify her with the children. She contends that, particularly concerning MC3 and MC4, who were not removed from her custody until March 4, 2021 (MC2 was removed on July 22, 2019), there were no services provided in the three months leading up to DHS's filing the termination petition on June 14, 2021. Jessica's argument is without merit. A finding of aggravated circumstances does not require DHS to prove that meaningful services were provided.To the extent that Jessica argues she was not given enough time to reunify with the children- especially MC3 and MC4-we are again unpersuaded. There is no time-based requirement for termination of parental rights pursuant to the aggravated-circumstances ground.
Id.
See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-241(b)(3)(B)(ix)(a)(A)-(B)(i).
Jessica was offered a myriad of services throughout the pendency of the case, which began in 2018 with the removal of MC1 from her custody. While she has participated in some services, such as a drug-and-alcohol assessment, she failed to follow through with the recommended outpatient drug treatment. Indeed, Jessica was a "no-show" for an outpatient drug treatment appointment the day before the termination hearing. Likewise, she also failed to attend her second psychological-evaluation appointment. Although she attended some classes, she failed to complete parenting classes as ordered. Furthermore, she continued to abuse drugs. A parent's failure to remedy drug issues despite services directed at drug addiction supports termination on the aggravated-circumstances ground. Not only did she continue to test positive for illegal drugs, but Jessica also failed to maintain stable housing, employment, and transportation. In light of the foregoing evidence of Jessica's failure to comply with the case plan and court orders, we find no clear error in the circuit court's determination that she subjected the children to aggravated circumstances.
Ladd v. Ark. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 2017 Ark.App. 419, 526 S.W.3d 883.
Although the circuit court terminated Jessica's parental rights on multiple statutory grounds, only one ground is necessary to affirm the termination. Therefore, because we affirm the circuit court's finding of aggravated circumstances, it is unnecessary to address the evidence supporting the remaining statutory grounds on which termination of Jessica's parental rights was based.
Redden v. Ark. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 2019 Ark.App. 539, 589 S.W.3d 401.
Jessica next challenges the circuit court's finding that termination of her parental rights was in the children's best interest. An analysis of best interest includes consideration of the likelihood the children will be adopted and of the potential harm caused by returning custody of the children to the parent. In challenging the circuit court's best-interest determination, Jessica does not attack the adoptability prong of the circuit court's best-interest finding. Instead, she asserts that termination of her parental rights was not in the best interest of any of the children, "specifically as to MC3 and MC4, when Jessica was not afforded the requisite amount of time in order to achieve reunification." She argues that she should have been afforded twelve months from the date the children were removed in March 2021 to complete parenting classes, counseling, and obtain employment. Jessica contends that without the "statutory amount of time, it was contrary to the best interest of [MC3] and [MC4] to terminate [her] parental rights after only six (6) months of services." Jessica's argument is without merit. She fails to cite any authority for her contention that there is a time requirement for a finding of potential harm. We will not address an argument when the appellant fails to cite any compelling legal authority in support of the argument. Further, lack of time to complete appropriate services is irrelevant to the circuit court's determination of best interest. DHS is not required to provide services under the analysis of potential harm. Additionally, a parent's continued illegal drug use and instability are sufficient to demonstrate a risk of potential harm to the children.
Norton v. Ark. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 2017 Ark.App. 285.
Kloss v. Ark. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 2019 Ark.App. 389, 585 S.W.3d 725.
Holdcraft v. Ark. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 2019 Ark.App. 151, 573 S.W.3d 555.
Robinson v. Ark. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 2017 Ark.App. 262, 520 S.W.3d 322.
We affirm the circuit court's finding of aggravated circumstances and its best-interest determination and resulting order terminating Jessica's parental rights to the children.
Bobby separately appeals the circuit court's termination of his parental rights to MC3 and MC4. He argues that DHS failed to prove the statutory grounds relied on to support the termination of his parental rights. Bobby's parental rights were also terminated on three statutory grounds: failure to remedy; subsequent factors; and aggravated circumstances. As previously noted, only one ground is necessary to affirm the termination of parental rights. For our purposes, we will address the termination of Bobby's parental rights on the finding that sufficient evidence supported the aggravated-circumstances ground.
Redden, supra.
Bobby argues that although some services were offered in MC2's case, DHS did not provide those services to Bobby because he was not a parent to MC2 and was not a party to the case. Bobby contends there is no evidence of meaningful services offered to him pertaining to his children, MC3 and MC4, and that he could not benefit from services that were never provided in an effort to achieve reunification. He asserts that the statutory intent-to strengthen familial bonds-cannot be achieved when minimal services are offered for a short time frame of six months. Again, we reiterate that a finding of aggravated circumstances does not require DHS to prove that meaningful services were provided.
Cloninger, supra.
Bobby was ordered to obtain and maintain safe, stable and appropriate housing; obtain and maintain income sufficient to support the family; obtain and maintain safe and reliable transportation; comply with random drug screens, hair-follicle tests, and alcohol swabs; attend and complete a drug-and-alcohol assessment and comply with the recommendations thereof; attend and complete a psychological evaluation and comply with the recommendations thereof; attend and complete parenting classes and demonstrate the skills learned at visitations; resolve any and all pending criminal issues and refrain from further illegal activity; keep DHS apprised of his current contact information and any changes; keep DHS apprised of any significant life events; and visit the juveniles as recommended. Contrary to his assertion, Bobby was offered the same services that DHS offered to Jessica: home visits; drug screens; visitation; transportation; parenting classes; daycare; food boxes; baby items; medical care; Christmas gifts; case management; and referrals for a drug-and-alcohol assessment, counseling, and a psychological evaluation. Notwithstanding these services, Bobby failed to comply with the case plan and orders of the court. The record sufficiently demonstrates that Bobby failed to maintain stable housing, employment, and transportation; failed to attend counseling; failed to complete parenting classes; missed visits with the children; threatened to murder DHS caseworkers on more than one occasion; kicked the window out of a police car at the time of MC3 and MC4's removal; and neglected the children to the point they tested positive for methamphetamine, ate out of the trash, and sustained rashes, bruises, and suspected cigarette burns. This evidence supports the circuit court's finding that there was little likelihood that services to Bobby would result in successful reunification because he had consistently failed to follow the orders of the court and comply with the case plan. Moreover, two DHS caseworkers, Anna Noakes, and Kiley Burge, testified that there were no additional services that DHS could offer to Bobby to reunify him with the children. A caseworker's testimony that there were no further services that DHS could provide to reunify a parent with his or her children supports a finding of aggravated circumstances.
Yancy v. Ark. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 2022 Ark.App. 35.
Reyes-Ramos v. Ark. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 2019 Ark.App. 46, 571 S.W.3d 32.
To the extent that Bobby argues the circuit court erred in terminating his parental rights because he was not a "parent" to MC3 or MC4, we find no error. Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-303(41)(C)(ii) provides that a parent is a man who has signed an acknowledgement of paternity pursuant to § 9-10-120. Bobby admits that he signed an acknowledgement of paternity regarding MC3 on May 25, 2021. Further, Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-303(41)(C)(i) provides that a parent is a man to whom the biological mother was married at the time of conception or birth. Jessica testified that she and Bobby were married on January 14, 2020. MC4 was born on August 12, 2020, after they were married. Therefore, for our purposes, Bobby was a parent to both MC3 and MC4.
(Supp. 2021).
Bobby also challenges the circuit court's finding that termination of his parental rights was in the best interest of the children. Because he does not challenge the adoptability factor of the circuit court's best-interest finding, we are not required to address this factor. As to potential harm, Bobby continued to use illegal drugs throughout the case. So much so that even the children tested positive for drugs. We have consistently held that continued drug use demonstrates potential harm sufficient to support a best-interest finding in a termination-of-parental-rights case.
Easter v. Ark. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 2019 Ark.App. 441, 587 S.W.3d 64.
Doucet v. Ark. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 2020 Ark.App. 323, 603 S.W.3d 643.
Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's finding that termination of Bobby's parental rights was in the best interest of the children.
Because the findings of the circuit court are supported by clear and convincing evidence, we affirm the termination of both Jessica's and Bobby's parental rights.
Affirmed.
Abramson and Whiteaker, JJ., agree.