Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 33 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CV-24-569
Opinion Delivered January 22, 2025
DANIELA PINEDA-GARCIA APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 72JV-24-236] V. HONORABLE DIANE WARREN, JUDGE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR CHILD AFFIRMED APPELLEES
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant Daniela Pineda-Garcia appeals order of the Washington County Circuit
Court adjudicating her son, MC, dependent-neglected because of physical abuse. Appellant
argues that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of dependency-neglect. We
affirm.
The Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition of emergency
custody and dependency-neglect on April 16, 2024. According to the accompanying
affidavit, DHS received an investigation referral on April 11 concerning five-year-old MC,
who had reported being choked by appellant. Family Service Worker (FSW) Aaron Wayne
received the referral; however, he determined that Washington County was the appropriate
venue for the case. FSW Abel Serrano was assigned to the case and subsequently traveled to the Children’s Safety Center in Springdale and observed an interview of MC. MC stated
that appellant had choked him before bed the night before and that he could not breathe at
the time. He also had a small mark on the right side of his neck. Appellant denied choking
MC but stated that she had grabbed him by his shoulders with both hands and put him in
bed when he refused to go on his own. Appellant stated that MC might have interpreted
what happened as him being choked. She also stated that if she did choke MC, it was an
accident and “it could have been something in the heat of the moment.” The Springdale
Police Department issued a no-contact order between appellant and MC on April 11 after
receiving a referral from DHS. MC was removed from appellant’s custody that same day.
MC’s younger sister was left in the home because there was no indication of abuse or neglect
and no prior history with DHS. The circuit court filed an ex parte order for emergency
custody on April 17. A probable-cause order followed on May 15 wherein the circuit court
found that continued DHS custody was necessary for MC’s protection and best interest of
MC.
The circuit court held an adjudication hearing on June 10. Detective Josue Rivas of
the Springdale Police Department testified that he was assigned to the case following a
hotline report. He said that he witnessed MC’s interview at the Children’s Safety Center
and that MC “disclosed an injury and pain on the right side of his neck and he made several
comments about possibly being choked.” He stated that he found MC credible during the
interview. He stated that he also found appellant credible when she denied choking MC.
Detective Rivas said that there was a one-fourth-inch injury on the right side of MC’s neck.
2 He testified that he subsequently made the decision to charge appellant with third-degree
domestic battery and put a no-contact order in place. He said that the no-contact order is
still in place and that criminal charges against appellant are pending. On cross-examination,
Detective Rivas agreed that it was possible that MC perceived appellant’s actions as choking
without appellant choking him.
FSW Serrano testified that he witnessed MC’s initial interview and stated that MC
disclosed that appellant had choked him and then “put his hands to his neck indicating, like
that she choked him.” He said that he found MC credible in his interview. He stated that
MC was removed from appellant’s custody because there was a no-contact order in place and
appellant had no other support. He testified that he currently oversees visits between MC
and his stepfather and that MC expresses his desire to go home. He stated that as long as
there is a no-contact order in place, MC cannot be returned to the home. He admitted on
cross-examination that MC might have perceived something else as choking due to his young
age. He also stated that MC has not expressed any fear of appellant. FSW Serrano opined
that based on the scratch on MC’s neck, MC was not “necessarily choked, . . . he
misunderstood the situation.” He did admit that MC’s neck was sore to the touch but said
that he viewed no bruises on MC’s neck.
FSW Haley Miles testified that she is the caseworker in this case. She stated that MC
is currently in a foster home in Rogers. She said that MC should remain in DHS’s custody
due to the no-contact order in place between him and appellant. She also stated that she
3 has received reports that MC “reenacts getting choked by his mother and he thinks about it
a lot.” She testified that the goal of the case is reunification.
Stacy Warren, the FSW supervisor for Washington County DHS, testified that there
is a true finding against appellant for abuse that may or may not have caused physical injury
involving MC.
At the conclusion of the hearing, DHS asked the circuit court to find MC dependent-
neglected as a result of abuse, neglect, and parental unfitness. Appellant’s attorney argued
that the evidence was insufficient to find that appellant had abused MC. The ad litem
opined that MC could not be returned to the home due to the no-contact order, the true
finding of abuse, and the criminal charges against appellant as well as a pending abuse
investigation against the stepfather.
The circuit court found that MC was dependent-neglected on the basis of physical
harm and noted that “[MC] credibly disclosed that [appellant] choked him. The testimony
is that he has reenacted - - that he not only said that verbally, but he had a physical description
of being choked. That the testimony further was that he has reenacted that since he’s been
in care.” The circuit court pointed out appellant’s statement in the affidavit that “if she did
choke him she did not mean to and it could have been something in the heat of the
moment.” It also noted the true finding of abuse, the pending criminal charges, and the
current no-contact order when finding MC dependent-neglected. The adjudication order
was filed on June 13. Appellant timely appealed.
4 An adjudication of dependency-neglect is immediately appealable.1 The purpose of
an adjudication hearing is to determine whether the allegations in the petition are
substantiated by the proof.2 The burden of proof at an adjudication hearing is
preponderance of the evidence.3 In dependency-neglect cases, the standard of review on
appeal is de novo, but the appellate court will not reverse the circuit court’s findings unless
they are clearly erroneous.4 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.5 Moreover, in reviewing dependency-neglect
adjudications, we defer to the circuit court’s evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses. 6
The focus of an adjudication hearing is on the child, not the parent; at this stage of a
proceeding, the Juvenile Code is concerned with whether the child is dependent-neglected.7
“A dependent-neglected juvenile is defined as any juvenile who is at substantial risk of serious
harm as a result of abuse, neglect, or parental unfitness to the juvenile or a sibling of the
1 Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(a)(1)(A). 2 Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs. v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 33 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CV-24-569
Opinion Delivered January 22, 2025
DANIELA PINEDA-GARCIA APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 72JV-24-236] V. HONORABLE DIANE WARREN, JUDGE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR CHILD AFFIRMED APPELLEES
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant Daniela Pineda-Garcia appeals order of the Washington County Circuit
Court adjudicating her son, MC, dependent-neglected because of physical abuse. Appellant
argues that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of dependency-neglect. We
affirm.
The Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition of emergency
custody and dependency-neglect on April 16, 2024. According to the accompanying
affidavit, DHS received an investigation referral on April 11 concerning five-year-old MC,
who had reported being choked by appellant. Family Service Worker (FSW) Aaron Wayne
received the referral; however, he determined that Washington County was the appropriate
venue for the case. FSW Abel Serrano was assigned to the case and subsequently traveled to the Children’s Safety Center in Springdale and observed an interview of MC. MC stated
that appellant had choked him before bed the night before and that he could not breathe at
the time. He also had a small mark on the right side of his neck. Appellant denied choking
MC but stated that she had grabbed him by his shoulders with both hands and put him in
bed when he refused to go on his own. Appellant stated that MC might have interpreted
what happened as him being choked. She also stated that if she did choke MC, it was an
accident and “it could have been something in the heat of the moment.” The Springdale
Police Department issued a no-contact order between appellant and MC on April 11 after
receiving a referral from DHS. MC was removed from appellant’s custody that same day.
MC’s younger sister was left in the home because there was no indication of abuse or neglect
and no prior history with DHS. The circuit court filed an ex parte order for emergency
custody on April 17. A probable-cause order followed on May 15 wherein the circuit court
found that continued DHS custody was necessary for MC’s protection and best interest of
MC.
The circuit court held an adjudication hearing on June 10. Detective Josue Rivas of
the Springdale Police Department testified that he was assigned to the case following a
hotline report. He said that he witnessed MC’s interview at the Children’s Safety Center
and that MC “disclosed an injury and pain on the right side of his neck and he made several
comments about possibly being choked.” He stated that he found MC credible during the
interview. He stated that he also found appellant credible when she denied choking MC.
Detective Rivas said that there was a one-fourth-inch injury on the right side of MC’s neck.
2 He testified that he subsequently made the decision to charge appellant with third-degree
domestic battery and put a no-contact order in place. He said that the no-contact order is
still in place and that criminal charges against appellant are pending. On cross-examination,
Detective Rivas agreed that it was possible that MC perceived appellant’s actions as choking
without appellant choking him.
FSW Serrano testified that he witnessed MC’s initial interview and stated that MC
disclosed that appellant had choked him and then “put his hands to his neck indicating, like
that she choked him.” He said that he found MC credible in his interview. He stated that
MC was removed from appellant’s custody because there was a no-contact order in place and
appellant had no other support. He testified that he currently oversees visits between MC
and his stepfather and that MC expresses his desire to go home. He stated that as long as
there is a no-contact order in place, MC cannot be returned to the home. He admitted on
cross-examination that MC might have perceived something else as choking due to his young
age. He also stated that MC has not expressed any fear of appellant. FSW Serrano opined
that based on the scratch on MC’s neck, MC was not “necessarily choked, . . . he
misunderstood the situation.” He did admit that MC’s neck was sore to the touch but said
that he viewed no bruises on MC’s neck.
FSW Haley Miles testified that she is the caseworker in this case. She stated that MC
is currently in a foster home in Rogers. She said that MC should remain in DHS’s custody
due to the no-contact order in place between him and appellant. She also stated that she
3 has received reports that MC “reenacts getting choked by his mother and he thinks about it
a lot.” She testified that the goal of the case is reunification.
Stacy Warren, the FSW supervisor for Washington County DHS, testified that there
is a true finding against appellant for abuse that may or may not have caused physical injury
involving MC.
At the conclusion of the hearing, DHS asked the circuit court to find MC dependent-
neglected as a result of abuse, neglect, and parental unfitness. Appellant’s attorney argued
that the evidence was insufficient to find that appellant had abused MC. The ad litem
opined that MC could not be returned to the home due to the no-contact order, the true
finding of abuse, and the criminal charges against appellant as well as a pending abuse
investigation against the stepfather.
The circuit court found that MC was dependent-neglected on the basis of physical
harm and noted that “[MC] credibly disclosed that [appellant] choked him. The testimony
is that he has reenacted - - that he not only said that verbally, but he had a physical description
of being choked. That the testimony further was that he has reenacted that since he’s been
in care.” The circuit court pointed out appellant’s statement in the affidavit that “if she did
choke him she did not mean to and it could have been something in the heat of the
moment.” It also noted the true finding of abuse, the pending criminal charges, and the
current no-contact order when finding MC dependent-neglected. The adjudication order
was filed on June 13. Appellant timely appealed.
4 An adjudication of dependency-neglect is immediately appealable.1 The purpose of
an adjudication hearing is to determine whether the allegations in the petition are
substantiated by the proof.2 The burden of proof at an adjudication hearing is
preponderance of the evidence.3 In dependency-neglect cases, the standard of review on
appeal is de novo, but the appellate court will not reverse the circuit court’s findings unless
they are clearly erroneous.4 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.5 Moreover, in reviewing dependency-neglect
adjudications, we defer to the circuit court’s evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses. 6
The focus of an adjudication hearing is on the child, not the parent; at this stage of a
proceeding, the Juvenile Code is concerned with whether the child is dependent-neglected.7
“A dependent-neglected juvenile is defined as any juvenile who is at substantial risk of serious
harm as a result of abuse, neglect, or parental unfitness to the juvenile or a sibling of the
1 Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(a)(1)(A). 2 Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs. v. Hall, 2021 Ark. App. 108, 618 S.W.3d 219.
3 Id.
4 Hilburn v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 420, 558 S.W.3d 885.
5 Hall, supra.
6 Worrell v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 671, 378 S.W.3d 258.
7 Ussery v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2022 Ark. App. 250, 646 S.W.3d 266.
5 juvenile.”8 Additionally, a finding of dependency-neglect occurs without reference to
whether a particular parent committed the acts or omissions that caused the dependency-
neglect; rather, the juvenile is simply dependent-neglected.9
Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the circuit court’s
finding that MC is dependent-neglected. MC was adjudicated dependent-neglected based
on physical abuse. Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-303(3)(A)(v), abuse
includes any nonaccidental physical injury committed by a parent or guardian. Abuse also
includes the intentional or knowing interference with a child’s breathing with or without
physical injury.10
The evidence shows that MC disclosed that appellant choked him, and he was unable
to breathe at that time. He continued to reenact the incident even while in foster care.
There was a small scratch in the area where MC stated he was injured, and he also indicated
pain in that area when touched although no bruising was present. Although the witnesses
agreed that MC could have misperceived what appellant had done to him, criminal charges
were brought against her, a no-contact order was put in place, and there was a true finding
8 Raynor v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2022 Ark. App. 263, at 7, 646 S.W.3d 406, 411 (citing Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(17)(A)(ii), (v), (vi).
9 Araujo v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2019 Ark. App. 181, 574 S.W.3d 683.
10 Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(3)(A)(vii)(c).
6 of abuse. Based on this evidence, we cannot say that the circuit court erred by finding that
MC was dependent-neglected due to physical abuse. Therefore, we affirm.
We note that the arguments made by appellant are nothing more than requests that
we reweigh the evidence in her favor, which we will not do. The circuit court’s weighing the
evidence differently that appellant wanted it to be weighed is not reversible error. We do
not act as a super fact-finder nor do we second guess the circuit court’s credibility
determinations.11
Affirmed.
TUCKER and WOOD, JJ., agree.
Jennifer Oyler Olson, 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 child.
11 See McCord v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2020 Ark. App. 244, 599 S.W.3d 374.