Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 443 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-23-243
CRYSTAL JURLS Opinion Delivered October 4, 2023 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE COLUMBIA V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 14JV-22-20]
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HONORABLE DAVID W. HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR TALLEY, JR., JUDGE CHILDREN APPELLEES AFFIRMED
KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge
Appellant Crystal Jurls appeals after the Columbia County Circuit Court filed an
order terminating her parental rights to her two children, Minor Child 1 (MC1) (DOB 04-
19-18) and Minor Child 2 (MC2) (DOB 08-20-19). Appellant argues on appeal that (1) the
circuit court lacked jurisdiction to terminate her parental rights as to MC2; (2) there was
insufficient evidence to support the statutory grounds relied on by the circuit court; and (3)
there was insufficient evidence for the circuit court to find that the termination of parental
rights was in the children’s best interest. We affirm.
I. Relevant Facts
On April 18, 2022, the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a
petition for emergency custody and dependency-neglect asking the circuit court to find MC1
and MC2 dependent-neglected and to place them in DHS’s custody. In the affidavit attached to the petition, DHS stated that a seventy-two-hour hold was exercised over the children on
April 14, 2022. DHS had received a referral regarding the children. It was alleged that the
children were dirty, had bites that had become infected, lacked electricity and water in the
home, and had been seen outside in the road without supervision. After an investigation,
the family-service worker (FSW) saw red marks on MC2’s legs and arms. MC2’s teacher
explained that MC2 would come to school with dirty clothes that smelled like mildew and
had dried feces on him. The teacher further explained that the school has had to purchase
clothing for the children and would bathe the children at school once or twice a week.
Further, MC1 indicated that he was afraid of a man at his home because the man would hit
him, his brother, and appellant and that there was no food at home. At the home, the FSW
observed that there were piles of clothes on the floor; the refrigerator had a foul odor and
had empty jugs inside; and the stove and kitchen counters had an excessive amount of clutter
piled on top of them. Appellant admitted that there was no electricity in the home but that
she would run an extension cord from her neighbor’s home to access power. Although she
had running water in the home at the time, there was no hot water. Appellant further
refused to take a drug test after the FSW noticed a “pompom cigar wrapper” in the home.
The children were removed on the basis of two safety-assessment factors: “Safety factors #7:
Caretaker is unwilling or unable to meet the child’s need for food, clothing, shelter, and/or
medical or mental health care” and “Safety Factor #9: Child’s physical living conditions are
hazardous and immediately threatening, based on child’s age and developmental status.”
2 The circuit court granted the petition, finding that probable cause existed, and a
probable-cause order was filed on May 9, 2022. Thereafter, an adjudication and disposition
order was filed on June 3, 2022, finding MC1 and MC2 dependent-neglected. The circuit
court found that the allegations in the petition were true and correct. It specifically found
that the children were unclean at day care and did not have working utilities at home. The
circuit court set the goal of the case as reunification with a concurrent goal of adoption and
relative placement. Appellant was ordered to follow the case plan, obey court orders, and
cooperate with DHS; obtain and maintain stable, clean, adequate, and suitable housing with
utilities; obtain and maintain stable employment or otherwise provide adequate income to
support the children; complete parenting classes; submit to random drug screens and test
negative on all of them; complete a substance abuse assessment and follow
recommendations; attend and participate in individual counseling; complete homemaker
and budgeting services; and undergo a psychological evaluation.
On August 11, 2022, the circuit court filed a temporary custody order granting Dustin
Hamilton, MC2’s putative father, custody of MC2. A review hearing was held on August 5,
2022, and the circuit court filed a review order on August 17, 2022. After receiving the
results from DNA testing, the circuit court adjudicated Dustin Hamilton to be MC2’s legal
father. The circuit court found that MC1 should remain in DHS custody and that MC2
should remain in Mr. Hamilton’s custody. The circuit court continued the goals of the case.
Regarding appellant’s compliance, the circuit court made the following findings:
Crystal Jurls has partially complied with the case plan and the orders of the Court. Specifically, not completed her psych eval, and has people leaving in and out of her
3 home. She recently completed her assessment, has been attending counseling and has missed some visits. Crystal Jurls has not demonstrated progress towards the goal of the case plan.
Another review hearing was held on November 4, 2022, and a written order was filed
on November 16, 2022. During that hearing, DHS provided several exhibits at that hearing
that were filed in the court record, including a court report, a list of dates on which appellant
either refused to take a drug test or tested positive for drugs, and a copy of appellant’s
psychological evaluation. DHS indicated that appellant had refused several drug tests and
tested positive for “Methamphetamine/Amphetamine” on August 16 and August 25, 2022,
and for “Methamphetamine” on September 26, 2022. The psychological evaluation stated
the following conclusions:
This is Ms. Jurls second time of being evaluated at this office and her oldest son was removed at that time and her current prognosis is guarded. She does not appear capable of taking care of her children, based on the school report, her report of no electricity, no water (was getting it from the neighbor), her drug use with a limited time of sobriety, (she sees no reason to go to 12 step meetings), she lacks transportation, she has a history of problems with the law, is living with two men and a woman (it doesn’t appear to be an acceptable environment for children). She is receiving Social Security as she states she has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and Borderline Personality disorder (also supported by testing today) and has not worked since she was 18 when she worked at Walmart. She does not appear to be a healthy or appropriate role model for children, has poor judgment and does not appear capable of providing adequately for them. It is recommended that her parental rights be terminated, and perhaps placing the children with family members as it does not appear to be in the best interest of her children to continue under her care. She claims she only receives $880 a month which does not appear sufficient for her and two children. She also is still at a high probability of substance use disorder based on testing. Returning her children to her would likely be putting them in harm’s way as her prognosis is guarded at best.
In its review order, the circuit court found that MC1 should remain in DHS custody
and that MC2 should remain in Mr. Hamilton’s custody. The circuit court continued the
4 goals of the case. Regarding appellant’s compliance, the circuit court found that appellant
only partially complied with the case plan and that she had not demonstrated progress
toward the goal of the case plan.
DHS filed a petition for the termination of parental rights on November 15, 2022,
specifically alleging that appellant’s parental rights should be terminated on the statutory
grounds of aggravated circumstances and subsequent factors. See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-
341(b)(3) (Supp. 2023). A termination hearing was held on December 16, 2022.
At the beginning of appellant’s termination hearing via Zoom, appellant stated that
her vehicle was broken down on the side of the road and that she had retained a private
attorney to represent her instead of her appointed counsel. The circuit court explained that
the attorney she claimed to have retained had not entered a notice of appearance in the case.
After further discussion, the circuit court called the attorney whom appellant claimed she
had retained, and the circuit court was told that he had not been retained and therefore had
not entered an appearance. The termination hearing proceeded with appellant represented
by appointed counsel.
Roquayyah Blake, the caseworker assigned to the case, testified regarding the case
history as already outlined above. She also testified about appellant’s compliance during this
case. Ms. Blake testified that appellant had not completed parenting classes; had made only
twelve visits and missed seventeen visits with her children since the case had opened; and
had failed to consistently maintain a clean and appropriate home. Ms. Blake explained that
appellant’s home did not have running water during the pendency of this case and that
5 appellant had even been “cited for stealing water while her water was turned off.” The last
time she was permitted in the home was on October 26, 2022. At that time, the home was
in order. However, Ms. Blake attempted to see the home multiple times after that date, but
appellant refused and offered Ms. Blake various excuses. Appellant completed a
psychological evaluation, and Ms. Blake testified regarding the findings of the evaluation as
already discussed above. Appellant refused multiple requests for drug screens and tested
positive on the dates she did submit to drug screens. Appellant never had a negative drug
screen during the pendency of this case. Ms. Blake acknowledged that DHS was seeking
termination of appellant’s parental rights before the expiration of a full year of services due
to appellant’s lack of progress and compliance with her case plan. She stated that appellant
has not shown that she is willing or able to protect the children; she can or will provide
suitable housing; she can remain drug-free to provide suitable care for the children; or she is
willing and able to meet the children’s needs for food, clothing, and shelter. On cross-
examination, Ms. Blake admitted that appellant had a prior DHS case that concerned MC1
and that appellant was able to “resolve those issues previously and regain custody of [MC1].”
Haley Callison, an adoption specialist for DHS, testified that she ran a data match
for the children “together[,]” which identified 138 potential families willing to adopt the
children as a sibling group and 213 potential families interested in adopting MC1. She also
stated that a specific family had also expressed an interest in adopting MC1. When asked
about whether there is anyone who would be interested in having either permanent custody
of or adopting MC2, Ms. Callison testified that MC2 was with his biological father.
6 Appellant also testified at the hearing. She could not remember the last time she
attended a parenting class but claimed that she was still trying to complete the classes. She
admitted that she could not remember the exact number of visits she missed with her
children but thought seventeen visits had sounded correct. Appellant testified that she
thought she had sufficient income and now had a home with working utilities. Appellant
denied that she was using methamphetamine or anything that would be considered an illegal
substance. Appellant believed her home was safe for the children and that she was able to
keep them safe. As such, she did not feel that it was in the children’s best interest to
terminate her parental rights. At the conclusion of the termination hearing, the circuit court
orally ruled from the bench that it was granting DHS’s petition for termination of parental
rights. On the same day, following the termination hearing, the circuit court also orally ruled
that MC2 be placed in Mr. Hamilton’s permanent custody.
Despite the circuit court’s oral ruling that it was terminating appellant’s parental
rights and that MC2 be placed in Mr. Hamilton’s permanent custody on the same day, we
inexplicably have three separate orders that were filed on different dates memorializing the
circuit court’s oral rulings. The first order filed on January 6, 2023, awarded Mr. Hamilton
permanent custody of MC2. The circuit additionally stated that it “hereby closes its case as
to [MC2] and no further reviews shall be conducted in this matter as to [MC2].” It further
provided that the “Order of Permanent Custody shall remain in effect until the entry of
further orders of this Court or a court of competent jurisdiction and this matter is subject
to being reopened for enforcement or modification.”
7 The second order, filed on January 17, 2023, found that it was in the best interest of
MC2 that his name be changed. It directed that Mr. Hamilton’s name be listed as MC2’s
father on the birth certificate. It additionally directed that appellant’s name shall no longer
appear on the birth certificate because her parental rights had been terminated.
Finally, seconds after the second order was filed, the circuit court filed a written order
terminating appellant’s parental rights on January 17, 2023. The circuit court specifically
found by clear and convincing evidence that the aggravated-circumstances ground alleged in
the petition against appellant supported termination and that it is in the best interest of the
children to terminate appellant’s parental rights. Relevant to appellant’s points on appeal,
the circuit court made the following specific findings:
7. Specifically, the Department showed that [MC1] and [MC2] were removed from the custody of Crystal Jurls on April 14, 2022, placed in the Department’s custody on April 20, 2022, probable cause was found on April 20, 2022 and the children were adjudicated dependent-neglect on May 20, 2022. Original concerns that caused the case to open have not adequately been addressed, Crystal Jurls’ income and housing. Crystal Jurls allowing people to live in the home and be around that she should not be associating with, specifically associating with felons. Crystal Jurls talks about being reliant on a tax return from 2021 that still has not come to take care of court obligations and come up with money for rehab she is supposed to attend in a few weeks. Crystal Jurls failed to exercise visits, missing a large number of visits. The Court acknowledges that Crystal Jurls completed her psychological evaluation but the recommendations in the evaluation do not bode well for reunification as issues raised have not been addressed. Crystal Jurls has an order of protection against Curtis Carroll, asked that it be set aside to give her a break from her kids, meaning she would allow a man that was abusive to her to provide care for the children. Nothing from Crystal Jurls’ counselor makes the Court feel that things will get better. Crystal Jurls is not cooperative to allow home inspections or random drug screens. Crystal Jurls is not credible in her testimony that conflicts with Ms. Blake’s testimony. Crystal Jurls stated she had retained private counsel, but the Court called this attorney and he informed the Court that he had not been retained.
8 8. The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that it is in the best interest of the juveniles to terminate parental rights of the juveniles to terminate parental rights of Crystal Jurls. In making this finding, the Court specifically considered: (A) the likelihood that the juveniles will be adopted if the termination petition is granted, specifically the Department proved that children are adoptable based upon the testimony; and (B) the potential harm on the health and safety of juveniles caused by returning the juveniles to the custody of Crystal Jurls. The Court is not convinced that Crystal Jurls will not continue to associate with the same individuals she did during the case and she has manifested an incapacity to remedy the issues that caused removal demonstrate how [MC1] and [MC2] would be at risk of potential harm if returned to Crystal Jurls.
9. As such, the Court grants the Petition of the Department of Human Services and hereby terminates all parental rights between Crystal Jurls and her children. Any prior orders directing Crystal Jurls to pay on-going child support on behalf of the juveniles shall cease upon entry of this order.
This appeal followed.
II. Standard of Review
A circuit court’s order terminating parental rights must be based upon findings
proved by clear and convincing evidence. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3) (Supp. 2023).
Clear and convincing evidence is defined as that degree of proof that will produce in the
fact-finder a firm conviction as to the allegation sought to be established. Posey v. Ark. Dep’t
of Health & Hum. Servs., 370 Ark. 500, 262 S.W.3d 159 (2007). On appeal, the appellate
court reviews termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo but will not reverse the circuit
court’s ruling unless its findings are 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. In determining
whether a finding is clearly erroneous, an appellate court gives due deference to the
opportunity of the circuit court to judge the credibility of witnesses. Id.
9 In order 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. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-
341(b)(3)(A)(i) & (ii). The order terminating parental rights must also be based on a showing
of clear and convincing evidence as to one or more of the grounds for termination listed in
section 9-27-341(b)(3)(B). However, only one ground must be proved to support
termination. Reid v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2011 Ark. 187, 380 S.W.3d 918.
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(a)(3). Even full compliance with the case plan is not determinative;
the issue is whether the parent has become a stable, safe parent able to care for his or her
child. Cobb v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2017 Ark. App. 85, 512 S.W.3d 694. Moreover, a
child’s need for permanency and stability may override a parent’s request for additional time
to improve the parent’s circumstances. Id. Finally, a parent’s past behavior is often a good
indicator of future behavior. Id.
III. Jurisdiction
10 Before addressing the merits of this case, we must first address appellant’s
jurisdictional argument. Citing Young v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2012 Ark.
334, appellant argues that the circuit court lost jurisdiction to terminate her parental rights
when it granted permanent custody of MC2 to his father and closed his portion of the case.
In Young, an earlier dependency-neglect action had been closed in 2009 when the juvenile
court placed the child in the permanent custody of the Sextons with visitation to the mother.
In 2011, the Sextons filed an emergency ex parte petition to modify the mother’s visitation,
using the same case name and number from the closed dependency-neglect action. The
juvenile court reopened the case and decided the custody issue in a “permanency-planning”
format, although it was not a dependency-neglect matter. Although the issue does not appear
to have been argued by the parties in that case, the supreme court held that the circuit court
erred in applying the Juvenile Code because the dependency-neglect case had been resolved,
the action had been terminated, and the case could not be reopened. Id. Noting, however,
that the juvenile division is a circuit court—and therefore a trial court of general jurisdiction—
with jurisdiction to hear a general child-custody case, the Young court decided the merits of
the appeal. Id.
Appellant acknowledges in her brief “that the Young court determined that it was not
reversible error for the circuit to exercise jurisdiction as the circuit court was a court of
general jurisdiction and had the authority to determine the merits of the case.” However,
appellant attempts to distinguish Young by stating that “a new pleading had been filed to
reopen the matter” in Young and that no such pleading was filed in this case. Appellant
11 agrees that the circuit court orally ruled that it was terminating her parental rights on
December 16, 2022; however, she explains that the circuit court filed the order placing
permanent custody of MC2 and closing the case as to MC2 eleven days before the order
terminating parental rights was filed. She argues that because no new pleadings were filed
to reopen the case after the permanent custody order was filed or any subsequent motion for
“the circuit court to act as it relates to MC2,” the circuit court “had no authority to enter an
order terminating [her] rights to MC2 as his case was closed.” We disagree under the
particular circumstances presented in this case.
In Abram v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2016 Ark. App. 437, 502 S.W.3d
563, this court discussed the holding in Young. In Abram, a dependency-neglect case was
opened and subsequently closed after the children successfully achieved reunification with
their mother. Less than a month after the case had been closed, the mother was arrested on
drug-related charges, and DHS filed a petition for emergency custody and dependency-
neglect under the same docket number of the case that the court had closed the month
before. Eventually, a termination hearing was held, and at the close of the hearing, the
mother orally moved to dismiss the termination proceeding on the basis that DHS had
erroneously filed the case under the same docket number as a closed dependency-neglect
action. The circuit court denied the motion and terminated the mother’s parental rights.
In the Abram appeal, the mother repeated her argument that the termination
proceeding should have been dismissed and cited Young for support. We disagreed and
provided the following analysis:
12 Appellant’s reliance on Young is misplaced. The facts in this case are very different from the facts before the court in Young. Here, the dependency-neglect action had been closed for less than a month when the new petition for emergency custody and dependency neglect was filed, not two years later as in Young. Second, the new petition in this case was not a general-custody matter but a dependency- neglect petition, exactly the type of case heard in juvenile court. Appellant admits that the circuit court in this case had jurisdiction over the matter. Appellant argues, relying on Young, that the court improperly exercised its jurisdiction and thus that the trial court erred in not dismissing the case.
We recognize that the supreme court held in Young that the circuit court erred in reopening the two-year-closed dependency-neglect case to entertain a petition for modification of visitation. We do not interpret the court’s opinion, however, as forbidding the reopening of a closed dependency-neglect case in all circumstances, nor do we discern that the court offered a remedy for any alleged error in doing so. Indeed, in Young, where the court specifically held that the circuit court erred in reopening the case, the court then decided the merits of the appeal.
Accordingly, in this dependency-neglect case—decided on its own merits, occurring less than a month after the initial dependency-neglect case had been closed, and over which the juvenile court clearly had subject-matter jurisdiction—we hold that the court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss.
Abram, 2016 Ark. App. 437, at 4–5, 502 S.W.3d 566–67 (footnote omitted).
Similarly, we hold that appellant’s argument lacks merit and note that the facts of this
case are very different from those even in Young and Abram. Here, despite the circuit court’s
oral ruling that it was terminating appellant’s parental rights and that MC2 be placed in Mr.
Hamilton’s permanent custody on the same day, the two orders memorializing the circuit
court’s oral rulings were inexplicably separated by eleven days. In fact, had the orders been
filed at the same time or if the termination order was filed first as was perhaps contemplated
by the circuit court, this would not be an issue. Nevertheless, the first written order awarded
Mr. Hamilton permanent custody of MC2 and additionally stated that it “hereby closes its
case as to [MC2] and no further reviews shall be conducted in this matter as to [MC2].” It
13 further provided that the “Order of Permanent Custody shall remain in effect until the entry
of further orders of this Court or a court of competent jurisdiction and this matter is subject
to being reopened for enforcement or modification.” We cannot read the circuit court’s
order to mean that it was no longer finding that appellant’s parental rights should be
terminated and that it was instead closing the case completely. In fact, the original
dependency-neglect case remained opened. Therefore, it was unnecessary for additional
pleadings to be filed to “reopen” the case when the court had already held a hearing and
announced its findings that simply needed to be memorialized in a written order. The circuit
court clearly had subject-matter jurisdiction to enter the termination order as both Young
and Abram make clear. Thus, under the circumstances before us, we cannot hold that the
circuit court lacked authority to enter the termination order.
IV. Statutory Grounds
The circuit court granted the termination petition on the aggravated-circumstances
ground for termination under Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-341(b)(3)(B).
Appellant argues that the circuit court erred in terminating her parental rights because there
was insufficient evidence to support any of the grounds alleged in the petition to terminate
parental rights. She argues that she was working towards reunifying with her children, and
the fact she was previously able to reunify in a prior case demonstrates that further services
14 would result in a successful reunification this time as well. We cannot agree and hold that
there was sufficient evidence to support the aggravated-circumstances ground.
Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-341(b)(3)(B) defines the aggravated-
circumstances ground as follows:
(ix)(a) The parent is found by a court of competent jurisdiction, including the circuit court juvenile division, to:
....
(3)(A) Have subjected any juvenile to aggravated circumstances.
(B) “Aggravated circumstances” means:
(i) A juvenile has been abandoned, chronically abused, subjected to extreme or repeated cruelty, sexually abused, or a determination has been or is made by a judge that there is little likelihood that services to the family will result in successful reunification;
(Emphasis added.)
From the evidence presented at the termination hearing, despite DHS offering
appellant services, appellant refused to attend parenting classes; she inconsistently attended
her visits; she was arrested for stealing water; she moved a sex offender into her home; her
home remained environmentally inappropriate during the pendency of this case; she refused
or avoided home visits; and she avoided or tested positive on drug screens. In fact, appellant
never had a negative drug test during the eight months the case was opened. Much of this
evidence was also admitted by appellant during her psychological evaluation, and the
therapist who conducted her psychological evaluation even recommended termination.
Given appellant’s failure to cooperate and comply with the case plan, and under these facts,
15 we cannot hold that the circuit court clearly erred in its findings and affirm the circuit court’s
aggravated-circumstances finding.
V. Best Interest
In determining whether termination is in the best interest of a child, the circuit court
must consider the entire history of the case and all relevant factors in the case, including the
likelihood that the child will be adopted and the potential harm that would be caused by
returning the child to the custody of the parent. Foster v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2018 Ark.
App. 418, 559 S.W.3d 762. Adoptability and potential harm, however, are merely two
factors to be considered and need not be established by clear and convincing evidence. In
Phillips, we stated that some of the
[c]onsiderations in making a best-interest finding may include: the preservation of the children’s relationship with a grandparent; the severance of child support from a parent; whether a less drastic measure could be employed such as a no-contact order or supervised visitation; whether continued contact with the parent would be beneficial to the children if or when the children are living with a relative and not in an indeterminate state that is working against them; and whether the children are living in continued uncertainty.
Phillips v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2019 Ark. App. 383, at 12, 585 S.W.3d 703, 709–10.
Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence for the circuit court to find that
termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interest. Regarding MC2, she more
specifically argues that the “circuit court erred when terminating her parental rights to MC2
as termination was unnecessary as MC2 had achieved permanency through the lesser
restrictive means of custody with his father.” She argues that she did not pose a danger to
MC2, that she was partially complying with the case plan and simply needed more time, that
16 she did not physically harm MC2, that there was no expectation that MC2 would be adopted
because he had been placed with his father, and that “best interests were not served by
terminating [her] parental rights and forever severing the mother and child relationship.”
Appellees argue in their responsive brief that these specific arguments regarding MC2
are not preserved because appellant failed to raise them to the circuit court or obtain a ruling
below, and we agree. Macias v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2023 Ark. App. 230. However, even
if these arguments were preserved, they are meritless. Appellant analogizes this case to the
facts in Caldwell v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2010 Ark. App. 102, and Lively v.
Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2015 Ark. App. 131, 456 S.W.3d 383, both of which
involve a similar factual situation of termination of a father’s parental rights with the child
or children remaining in the care of the mother. In Caldwell, supra, this court concluded
that, because the child remained in the permanent care of her biological mother, termination
of the father’s parental rights would not achieve permanency, which is the goal of the statute.
Moreover, other factors, including preservation of the child’s relationship with her paternal
grandparents and the lack of any evidence that the father had physically abused or harmed
the child, weighed against termination. In Lively, supra, we found error in the circuit court’s
best-interest determination because there was no evidence of adoptability. In addition, we
noted that terminating the father’s parental rights jeopardized the children’s relationship
with their paternal grandparents as well as the financial support that the father might provide
to the children. Id.
17 The circumstances here, however, are not like those in Caldwell or Lively. In both
cases, this court held that termination of a father’s parental rights was not in the children’s
best interest, in large part due to close relationships between the children and their paternal
grandparents. In both Caldwell and Lively, the circuit court had determined that the paternal
grandparents were the most stable influences in the children’s lives. We held that
termination of the father’s rights in those cases endangered these significant, stabilizing
relationships. Caldwell, 2010 Ark. App. 102, at 7; Lively, 2015 Ark. App. 131, at 8, 456
S.W.3d at 388. Here, there is no evidence that MC2 had a significant relationship with his
maternal grandparents or any family on the mother’s side, and appellant does not argue such
on appeal. Therefore, the grandparent relationships that were a factor in Caldwell and Lively
are not a concern here.
Additionally, a court may terminate the rights of one parent and not the other parent
if the court finds that it is in the best interest of the child. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-
341(c)(2)(B). A juvenile’s need for permanency and stability overrides a parent’s request for
additional time to improve circumstances, and courts will not enforce parental rights to the
detriment of the well-being of the child. Dean v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2020 Ark. App.
286, 600 S.W.3d 136. The intent of the termination statute is to provide permanency in
the juvenile’s life in all circumstances where a return to the parent is contrary to the juvenile’s
health, safety, or welfare and cannot be accomplished in a reasonable period of time as
viewed from the juvenile’s perspective. Id. Here, we believe the facts are more like those in
White v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2018 Ark. App. 459, 558 S.W.3d 423, and
18 Bobbitt v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2022 Ark. App. 355. In both of these one-
parent termination cases, we held that the record supported the circuit court’s best-interest
findings despite similar arguments because the mother’s instability would subject the
children to potential harm if ever returned to them. Here, it was clear that appellant had
failed to follow court orders or the case plan, had not successfully addressed her drug-abuse
issues, and her living situation was not appropriate during much of this case. The fact that
MC2 is not up for adoption, standing alone, does not preclude this court from affirming the
potential harm the parent poses. Foster, supra. Adoptability is only one factor to be
considered. White, supra. Thus, on this record we cannot say that the circuit court clearly
erred.
Appellant additionally argues that the evidence failed to establish that she posed such
potential harm that would warrant terminating her parental rights to both children. She
argues that she was working on the case plan, had a home, completed a psychological
evaluation, and was working toward receiving substance-abuse treatment. She complains
that she had not been given the benefit of a full year of services before her parental rights
were terminated. She argues that “flawless compliance” is not necessary and that she should
have been given more than the eight months to achieve reunification. These arguments also
lack merit.
In this case, the circuit court had ample evidence of potential harm to support its
best-interest finding. Appellant’s home remained environmentally inappropriate during the
pendency of this case; she refused or avoided home visits; and she avoided or tested positive
19 on drug screens. In fact, appellant never had a negative drug test during the eight months
the case was opened. A parent’s continued illegal drug use and instability are sufficient to
demonstrate a risk of potential harm to the children. Lloyd v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2022
Ark. App. 461, 655 S.W.3d 534. Additionally, we have explained that the lack of time to
complete appropriate services is irrelevant to the circuit court’s determination of best
interest. Id. DHS is not required to provide services under the analysis of potential harm.
Id. Appellant essentially asks us to reweigh the evidence and second-guess the circuit court’s
credibility determinations, which we decline to do here. See Gibby v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs.,
2022 Ark. App. 146, 643 S.W.3d 794. Appellant’s behaviors over the course of the entire
case as outlined above do not show enough stability to render the circuit court’s finding that
appellant posed a risk of potential harm to the children clearly erroneous. Thus, under these
facts, we cannot say that the circuit court clearly erred when it determined that terminating
appellant’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. Accordingly, we affirm the
order terminating appellant’s parental rights.
Affirmed.
ABRAMSON and VIRDEN, JJ., agree.
Tabitha McNulty, Arkansas Commission for Parent Counsel, for appellant. Ellen K. Howard, Ark. Dep’t of Human Services, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee. Dana McClain, attorney ad litem for minor children.