Cite as 2022 Ark. App. 499 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-22-265
Opinion Delivered December 7, 2022 AMANDA HARRIS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE LONOKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 43JV-19-86]
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HONORABLE BARBARA HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR ELMORE, JUDGE CHILDREN APPELLEES AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Judge
Amanda Harris appeals from the order of the Lonoke County Circuit Court
terminating her parental rights to her three minor children. Pursuant to Linker-Flores v.
Arkansas Department of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004), and Arkansas
Supreme Court Rule 6-9(j), Harris’s attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a no-merit
brief asserting that there are no issues of arguable merit to support an appeal. Harris has
filed pro se points for reversal, and the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) has
filed a response. We affirm the order terminating Harris’s parental rights and grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw. Harris’s children, ages one, twelve, and thirteen, were taken into DHS custody on
May 29, 2019. A protective-services case had been open since April 2019 due to inadequate
supervision. During a home visit on May 29, Harris and her boyfriend, Brian Moody, tested
positive for methamphetamine and admitted using it the day before while the baby was in
the home.1 The children were later adjudicated dependent-neglected upon stipulation of
parental unfitness due to drug use. Harris complied with the case plan initially. She began
counseling and parenting classes, and she completed a thirty-day residential drug-treatment
program in September 2019. In October 2019, Harris submitted to a psychological
evaluation, which revealed mild intellectual disability. She was subsequently appointed a
guardian ad litem. The psychological evaluation also noted concerns about Harris’s capacity
to maintain recovery and concluded that she did not have the capacity to parent at that
point.
After Harris tested positive for THC in November 2019 and for THC and
methamphetamine in January 2020, she was ordered to undergo a second drug-and-alcohol
assessment. At a permanency-planning hearing held in June 2020, the court found that
Harris had not made significant, measurable progress. Harris had tested positive for
methamphetamine two more times, had missed her appointment for her second drug-and-
alcohol assessment, had failed to submit to a hair-follicle test, and had failed to complete
1 Moody was alleged to be the putative father of the youngest child, and he was later determined to be the legal father under the Juvenile Code. Moody’s parental rights were terminated, but he is not a party to this appeal.
2 parenting classes. The court added the concurrent goal of relative placement. Harris’s sister,
Donna Faircloth, had begun attending court hearings in February 2020, and DHS was
ordered to provide her with a psychological evaluation and a home study. Faircloth was
granted visitation with the children.
At the time of a review hearing in December 2020, Harris had still not submitted to
a second drug-and-alcohol assessment or a hair-follicle test. A termination hearing was
scheduled for March 30, 2021, but a review hearing was held on that date instead. At that
time, Harris had tested positive for methamphetamine on a hair-follicle test. A termination
hearing was then scheduled for June 2, 2021, but an order for continuance subsequently
continued the termination hearing to August 20, 2021. For unknown reasons, the
termination hearing did not take place until December 6, 2021.
At the termination hearing, Harris testified that after she completed inpatient
treatment in 2019, stress and anxiety caused her to start using drugs again. Caseworker
Jennifer Brackenridge testified that although Harris had tested negative on urine drug
screens from July 2020 through March 2021, DHS had later discovered “urine cleaner” in
her home; thus, DHS suspected that Harris had probably been altering her drug
screens. Harris tested positive for methamphetamine on hair-follicle tests in January and
April 2021. In May 2021, Harris finally completed her second drug-and-alcohol assessment,
which recommended outpatient treatment. In 2021, she tested positive on urine screens in
April, May, August, September, and October. Harris testified that she began the outpatient
3 treatment in September and completed it in October, and she said that she had last used
drugs in September.
Harris said that it was easier to stay clean since Moody had moved out at the end of
October 2021. Harris claimed that he would not be returning to live with her. Moody had
last visited the children in February 2020, had refused to submit to drug screens after July
2020, and had stopped participating in other services. Harris acknowledged that Moody was
still using drugs when he lived with her, and she blamed him and a neighbor for drug
paraphernalia DHS found in her home. Brackenridge testified that she had tried to convince
Harris to have Moody move out earlier in the case to no avail. Brackenridge testified that
Harris had made only sporadic progress regarding her substance-abuse issues, not substantial,
measurable progress. The circuit court terminated Harris’s parental rights upon finding that
she had not corrected her drug issues and that termination was in the children’s best
interest. The court noted that the case had been put off a long time, hoping that family
members would qualify to take the children, but they did not.
Termination of parental rights is a two-step process requiring a determination that
the parent is unfit and that termination is in the best interest of the child. Smith v. Ark. Dep’t
of Hum. Servs., 2020 Ark. App. 470, 610 S.W.3d 161. The first step requires proof of one or
more statutory grounds for termination; the second step, the best-interest analysis, includes
consideration of the likelihood that the child will be adopted and of the potential harm
caused by returning custody of the child to the parent. Id. Statutory grounds and a best-
interest finding must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, which is the degree of
4 proof that will produce in the fact-finder a firm conviction regarding the allegation sought
to be established. Id. We review termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo. Id. 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. 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.
After a review of the record, we agree with counsel that there could be no issue of
arguable merit to raise on appeal as to the sufficiency of at least one of the statutory
grounds. One of the grounds on which termination was based was the failure-to-remedy
ground, which allows for the termination of parental rights when a juvenile has been
adjudicated dependent-neglected, has continued out of the parent’s custody for twelve
months, and despite a meaningful effort by DHS to rehabilitate the parent and correct the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2022 Ark. App. 499 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-22-265
Opinion Delivered December 7, 2022 AMANDA HARRIS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE LONOKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 43JV-19-86]
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HONORABLE BARBARA HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR ELMORE, JUDGE CHILDREN APPELLEES AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Judge
Amanda Harris appeals from the order of the Lonoke County Circuit Court
terminating her parental rights to her three minor children. Pursuant to Linker-Flores v.
Arkansas Department of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004), and Arkansas
Supreme Court Rule 6-9(j), Harris’s attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a no-merit
brief asserting that there are no issues of arguable merit to support an appeal. Harris has
filed pro se points for reversal, and the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) has
filed a response. We affirm the order terminating Harris’s parental rights and grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw. Harris’s children, ages one, twelve, and thirteen, were taken into DHS custody on
May 29, 2019. A protective-services case had been open since April 2019 due to inadequate
supervision. During a home visit on May 29, Harris and her boyfriend, Brian Moody, tested
positive for methamphetamine and admitted using it the day before while the baby was in
the home.1 The children were later adjudicated dependent-neglected upon stipulation of
parental unfitness due to drug use. Harris complied with the case plan initially. She began
counseling and parenting classes, and she completed a thirty-day residential drug-treatment
program in September 2019. In October 2019, Harris submitted to a psychological
evaluation, which revealed mild intellectual disability. She was subsequently appointed a
guardian ad litem. The psychological evaluation also noted concerns about Harris’s capacity
to maintain recovery and concluded that she did not have the capacity to parent at that
point.
After Harris tested positive for THC in November 2019 and for THC and
methamphetamine in January 2020, she was ordered to undergo a second drug-and-alcohol
assessment. At a permanency-planning hearing held in June 2020, the court found that
Harris had not made significant, measurable progress. Harris had tested positive for
methamphetamine two more times, had missed her appointment for her second drug-and-
alcohol assessment, had failed to submit to a hair-follicle test, and had failed to complete
1 Moody was alleged to be the putative father of the youngest child, and he was later determined to be the legal father under the Juvenile Code. Moody’s parental rights were terminated, but he is not a party to this appeal.
2 parenting classes. The court added the concurrent goal of relative placement. Harris’s sister,
Donna Faircloth, had begun attending court hearings in February 2020, and DHS was
ordered to provide her with a psychological evaluation and a home study. Faircloth was
granted visitation with the children.
At the time of a review hearing in December 2020, Harris had still not submitted to
a second drug-and-alcohol assessment or a hair-follicle test. A termination hearing was
scheduled for March 30, 2021, but a review hearing was held on that date instead. At that
time, Harris had tested positive for methamphetamine on a hair-follicle test. A termination
hearing was then scheduled for June 2, 2021, but an order for continuance subsequently
continued the termination hearing to August 20, 2021. For unknown reasons, the
termination hearing did not take place until December 6, 2021.
At the termination hearing, Harris testified that after she completed inpatient
treatment in 2019, stress and anxiety caused her to start using drugs again. Caseworker
Jennifer Brackenridge testified that although Harris had tested negative on urine drug
screens from July 2020 through March 2021, DHS had later discovered “urine cleaner” in
her home; thus, DHS suspected that Harris had probably been altering her drug
screens. Harris tested positive for methamphetamine on hair-follicle tests in January and
April 2021. In May 2021, Harris finally completed her second drug-and-alcohol assessment,
which recommended outpatient treatment. In 2021, she tested positive on urine screens in
April, May, August, September, and October. Harris testified that she began the outpatient
3 treatment in September and completed it in October, and she said that she had last used
drugs in September.
Harris said that it was easier to stay clean since Moody had moved out at the end of
October 2021. Harris claimed that he would not be returning to live with her. Moody had
last visited the children in February 2020, had refused to submit to drug screens after July
2020, and had stopped participating in other services. Harris acknowledged that Moody was
still using drugs when he lived with her, and she blamed him and a neighbor for drug
paraphernalia DHS found in her home. Brackenridge testified that she had tried to convince
Harris to have Moody move out earlier in the case to no avail. Brackenridge testified that
Harris had made only sporadic progress regarding her substance-abuse issues, not substantial,
measurable progress. The circuit court terminated Harris’s parental rights upon finding that
she had not corrected her drug issues and that termination was in the children’s best
interest. The court noted that the case had been put off a long time, hoping that family
members would qualify to take the children, but they did not.
Termination of parental rights is a two-step process requiring a determination that
the parent is unfit and that termination is in the best interest of the child. Smith v. Ark. Dep’t
of Hum. Servs., 2020 Ark. App. 470, 610 S.W.3d 161. The first step requires proof of one or
more statutory grounds for termination; the second step, the best-interest analysis, includes
consideration of the likelihood that the child will be adopted and of the potential harm
caused by returning custody of the child to the parent. Id. Statutory grounds and a best-
interest finding must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, which is the degree of
4 proof that will produce in the fact-finder a firm conviction regarding the allegation sought
to be established. Id. We review termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo. Id. 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. 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.
After a review of the record, we agree with counsel that there could be no issue of
arguable merit to raise on appeal as to the sufficiency of at least one of the statutory
grounds. One of the grounds on which termination was based was the failure-to-remedy
ground, which allows for the termination of parental rights when a juvenile has been
adjudicated dependent-neglected, has continued out of the parent’s custody for twelve
months, and despite a meaningful effort by DHS to rehabilitate the parent and correct the
conditions that caused removal, those conditions have not been remedied by the parent.
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a) (Supp. 2021). Here, the children were out of
Harris’s home for more than two years, they had been adjudicated dependent-neglected, and
despite drug treatment and other services, Harris had failed to remedy her drug
use. Although Harris had periods of time with negative drug screens, her positive hair-follicle
tests and DHS’s discovery of “urine cleaner” indicated that those screens may have been
inaccurate. She then tested positive on drug screens in August, September, and October
leading up to the December 2021 termination hearing. Harris had also refused DHS’s pleas
to have Moody move out of her home even though he was using drugs. Although Harris
5 claimed to have been drug-free for the two months before the termination hearing, given the
evidence of continued drug use more than two years into the case, there is no meritorious
basis to argue that the circuit court clearly erred in finding sufficient proof of this ground.
We also agree with counsel that there is no meritorious basis to argue that the circuit
court erred in finding that termination was in the children’s best interest after two and a half
years in DHS custody. There was sufficient evidence that the children are adoptable and
that Harris’s drug use created potential harm to the children. See Furnish v. Ark. Dep’t of
Hum. Servs., 2017 Ark. App. 511, 529 S.W.3d 684. Finally, counsel has adequately identified
other rulings adverse to Harris and explained why those rulings do not provide meritorious
grounds for reversal. In her pro se points, Harris alleges that she was mistreated by DHS,
that she is clean and able to care for her children, and that Moody is no longer in her
life. Given our previous discussion and conclusion that there can be no meritorious
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination of Harris’s parental
rights, we conclude that her pro se points provide no grounds for reversal.
Having carefully examined the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude that counsel
has complied with the requirements established by the Arkansas Supreme Court for no-merit
termination cases and that the appeal is wholly without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the
order terminating Harris’s parental rights and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
GRUBER and BROWN, JJ., agree.
Brett D. Watson, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by: Brett D. Watson, for appellant.
6 Ellen K. Howard, Ark. Dep’t of Human Services, Office of Chief Counsel, for
appellee.
Dana McClain, attorney ad litem for minor children.