Cite as 2022 Ark. App. 410 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-22-217
Opinion Delivered October 19, 2022 DIANA DEJARNETTE APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE DREW V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 22JV-20-73] ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, MINOR CHILD 1, HONORABLE TERESA FRENCH, MINOR CHILD 2, MINOR CHILD 3, JUDGE AND MINOR CHILD 4 APPELLEES AFFIRMED
LARRY D. VAUGHT, Judge
Dianna Dejarnette appeals the order entered by the Drew County Circuit Court
terminating her parental rights to her four children: Minor Child 1 (born January 27, 2012),
Minor Child 2 (born April 13, 2014), Minor Child 3 (born July 18, 2015), and Minor Child 4
(born December 21, 2018).1 On appeal, Dejarnette contends that the circuit court clearly erred
in finding grounds supported termination and that termination is in the best interest of her
children. We affirm.
1The order also terminated the parental rights of Otis Burks, the legal father of Minor Child 4. Burks did not appeal the order, and he is not a party to this action. Christopher Sanders was originally named in this action as the putative father of Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2, and Minor Child 3, but in November 2020, the circuit court found that Sanders had not presented evidence to establish significant contacts with the juveniles and that his rights as a putative parent had not attached. Accordingly, the circuit court dismissed Sanders from the case. He is not a party to this appeal. On August 3, 2020, the Arkansas Department of Human Services (“DHS”) filed a
petition alleging that Dejarnette’s children were dependent-neglected and seeking to remove
them from Dejarnette’s custody. In an affidavit attached to the petition, a representative of
DHS summarized DHS’s history with Dejarnette. From February 3, 2017, to April 6, 2018, a
DHS case was open against Dejarnette for substance misuse. A second DHS case was opened
against Dejarnette on February 19, 2020, for inadequate supervision. This second case was
pending on July 28, 2020, when the Monticello police were called to the parking lot of an
apartment complex and found Dejarnette having a psychotic episode. She was aggressive and
confused, had disorganized speech, and was yelling in the presence of her children. The
affidavit further states that Dejarnette had been diagnosed with schizophrenia but was not
taking her medication as prescribed. Dejarnette was admitted to the hospital, and her children
were removed from her custody.
On August 4, the circuit court entered an ex parte order granting DHS’s request for
custody of Dejarnette’s children. Probable-cause and amended probable-cause orders were
entered on September 1 and 9, respectively, continuing the children in DHS’s custody and
authorizing DHS to provide services to the family.
An agreed adjudication order was entered on November 5 wherein the court stated
that the parties had stipulated that the children are dependent-neglected due to “inadequate
supervision by placing the children in a dangerous situation.” The court found that Dejarnette
had improved since being released from the hospital, was cooperating with DHS, and was
receiving services. The court ordered Dejarnette to sign medical releases, continue in-home
family services with St. Francis Services (“St. Francis”), participate in counseling and
2 medication management with Delta Counseling Associates (“Delta Counseling”), comply with
the recommendations of her drug-and-alcohol assessment, take her medication, and visit her
children. The court set reunification as the goal of the case.
Review orders were entered on January 13, March 23, and May 23, 2021. The January
2021 review order found that Dejarnette had demonstrated marginal progress since the last
hearing. Specifically, the court found that among other things Dejarnette (1) testified that she
had received a black eye from Otis Burks, Minor Child 4’s legal father, although she first falsely
reported to DHS that she had been bitten by an insect; (2) was receiving pain medications
from the hospital emergency room and from pain management, but she had not fully disclosed
her prescriptions to either facility; (3) had failed to sign medical releases as ordered; (4) did not
report her prescription drugs during her drug-and-alcohol assessment; (5) tested positive for
THC on October 14, 2020; (6) could not provide sufficient urine for random drug screens on
occasion; and (7) had not refilled her prescription medication. The court ordered Dejarnette
to stay away from Burks, execute medical releases, provide an accurate medication list to all
medical providers, submit to a new drug-and-alcohol assessment that included her prescription
medications, comply with all assessment recommendations, and attend counseling and drug
treatment. The court continued reunification as the goal of the case.
The March 2021 review order found that while Dejarnette had demonstrated
meaningful progress and had partially complied with the case plan since the last hearing, there
were still deficiencies. Dejarnette had transportation issues, so she had only two counseling
sessions with her therapist, Josh Woods, who was assigned to Dejarnette in January 2021.
Woods reported that he was unable to report any progress because of the limited number of
3 sessions with Dejarnette. The order also found that Dejarnette had been unavailable to DHS
for random drug screens and home visits and had told DHS that “she has a life to lead and
will not wait around the house for DHS to decide to come by and test her.” Finally, Dejarnette
reported that she had stopped taking some of her medications without her physician’s
approval. The circuit court ordered Dejarnette to attend day treatment at Delta Counseling;
continue with individual counseling at Delta Counseling; take her medications as prescribed;
and complete outpatient drug treatment with New Beginnings. Reunification remained the
goal of the case.
In the May 2021 review order, the circuit court found that Dejarnette had not been
compliant with the case plan since the last hearing. Specifically, the circuit court found that
Dejarnette had missed several counseling sessions, she was not taking her medications as
prescribed, she had failed to produce a urine sample for two drug screens, and she had failed
to make herself available to DHS for random drug screens. Woods testified that he had still
only had two sessions with Dejarnette since January 2021 and that she needs counseling and
medication management to manage her schizophrenia. There was testimony that Dejarnette
had moved to a women’s shelter because she believed there were booby traps in a tree near
her residence and because she was having issues with her neighbors and that she had
purchased cameras to install around her residence for security purposes. The circuit court
ordered Dejarnette to attend day treatment at Delta Counseling, complete outpatient
substance-abuse treatment, attend all therapy appointments, and take her medications as
prescribed. The court suspended urine tests and ordered a fingernail drug-screen test. The goal
of the case was reunification.
4 A permanency-planning order was entered on September 10 wherein the court listed
the issues Dejarnette was experiencing: she failed to maintain contact with DHS, she refused
the fingernail drug test, she failed to attend visits with her children, she tested positive for
buprenorphine in July, she failed to take her medications, she was rude to staff at New
Beginnings, she failed to make progress in outpatient drug treatment, and she was still seeing
and hearing things that do not exist. The court found that Dejarnette would benefit from
inpatient residential care for her mental-health issues, and the court ordered her to admit
herself to New Beginnings for ninety days of emergency inpatient treatment. The goal of the
case continued to be reunification.
The circuit court entered a fifteen-month review order on October 4. The court found
that the children had been removed from Dejarnette’s custody due to her mental-health
problems, and services had been offered to Dejarnette to address those concerns, but she had
not demonstrated progress with her mental health. The court found that she had recently
returned to the hospital for treatment and had failed to demonstrate progress sufficient for
unsupervised visits with her children. The court found that there is no expectation that should
services be continued, the end result would be any different. The court authorized DHS to file
a termination petition.
On October 11, DHS filed a petition to terminate Dejarnette’s parental rights. The
petition alleged three grounds in support of termination: twelve-month failure to remedy by a
5 custodial parent,2 subsequent other factors,3 and aggravated circumstances.4 DHS also alleged
that termination was in the children’s best interest.
The circuit court held a termination hearing on December 3. DHS caseworker Arnesha
Edington testified that Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2, Minor Child 3, and Minor Child 4 were
removed from the custody of Dejarnette on July 28, 2020, due to her delusional and psychotic
behavior and that she was admitted to the hospital for treatment. Edington stated that while
Dejarnette complied with portions of the case plan (she completed a parenting class, a
psychological assessment, and a drug-and-alcohol assessment), Dejarnette failed to comply
with other portions of the case plan. Dejarnette did not consistently take her medication, she
did not complete sessions at Delta Counseling, she did not complete her outpatient treatment
at New Beginnings, and she did not make herself available for random drug screens. Edington
said that Dejarnette’s failure to comply with the case plan prevented her from having
unsupervised visits with her children and that she did not regularly attend supervised visits.
Edington stated that Dejarnette still suffers from mental-health issues. Edington opined that
Dejarnette does not have the capacity to parent her children and that she cannot be
rehabilitated sufficient to remedy the situation that caused her children’s removal. According
to Edington, Dejarnette’s parental rights should be terminated. Edington later testified that
there are no barriers preventing the adoption of the children and that Joanna Taylor, the
2Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a) (Supp. 2021).
3Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a).
4Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(ix)(a)(3)(A).
6 maternal grandmother of Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2, and Minor Child 3, has indicated an
interest in adopting the three children.
Teresa Simpson, a program assistant for DHS, testified that she began working with
the Dejarnette family during the second protective-services case and continued working with
the family after the dependency-neglect case was filed. Simpson stated that she attempted to
perform thirty random drug screens on Dejarnette but completed only fifteen to twenty-five
screens because she could not reach Dejarnette. Simpson stated that she had no concerns with
Dejarnette’s interactions with her children during visitation. However, Simpson added that
Dejarnette failed to consistently attend visitation—she missed as many visits as she attended.
Brian Ramsay testified he and his wife had been fostering Minor Child 4 for six months
and that Minor Child 4 is a typical three-year-old child. When asked if they were willing to
adopt Minor Child 4, Ramsay said that they would consider adoption “down the road” if
Minor Child 4 needed a home.
Jamie Palmer, the court appointed special advocate (“CASA”), testified that she had
visited with the children multiple times during the case. In light of her observations, Palmer
testified that Dejarnette’s parental rights should not be terminated. Palmer said that Dejarnette
is improving and that she is providing adequate care to her children during visits. Palmer
admitted that she recommended in her CASA report that Dejarnette’s parental rights be
terminated, and she stated that opinion was based on information she had received from
others that Dejarnette was not complying with the case plan. Palmer testified that she had
observed Dejarnette’s paranoia during the case, but Palmer had not observed that behavior
7 more recently. Palmer said that she would have concerns about Dejarnette’s parenting abilities
if she was not taking her medication and was not seeking treatment.
Stephanie Harper, one of Dejarnette’s therapists, testified that Dejarnette had not been
discharged from treatment at Delta Counseling for missing appointments. Harper admitted
that Dejarnette had missed eleven appointments, but Harper said that Dejarnette had been
seen by multiple therapists at Delta Counseling, which caused some of the missed
appointments. Harper testified that she had one crisis call with Dejarnette in September and
only one in-person session with Dejarnette the day before the termination hearing. Harper
stated that Dejarnette is taking her medicine, keeping clean, attending day treatment, and
keeping appointments. Harper further opined that while services will be needed, Dejarnette
has the capability to be rehabilitated and to be a good parent.
Dejarnette testified that she completed all the recommended services except for four
outpatient meetings at New Beginnings. Dejarnette said she did not finish because Edington
called New Beginnings and reported that Dejarnette’s case was closed. Dejarnette also stated
that she had multiple counselors at Delta Counseling, and that interfered with her treatment
there. She denied avoiding random drug screens. She said that she was not home when DHS
visited, and she called them back and told them when she would be home. Finally, she testified
that she refused the fingernail test because she is Pentecostal, and a family member told her it
was against their religion.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court took the case under advisement. On
January 7, 2022, the circuit court reconvened and orally granted DHS’s petition to terminate
Dejarnette’s parental rights. The circuit court entered a written order of termination on January
8 13. In the order, the court found that all three statutory grounds alleged by DHS had been
proved and that termination was in the best interest of the children. This appeal followed.
Termination of parental rights is an extreme remedy and in derogation of the natural
rights of parents, but parental rights will not be enforced to the detriment or destruction of
the health and well-being of the child. Dowdy v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 180,
at 10, 314 S.W.3d 722, 727. Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-341(b)(3)(A)(i)
and (ii) (Supp. 2021), an order terminating parental rights must be based on a finding that
termination is in the child’s best interest, which includes consideration of the likelihood that
the juvenile will be adopted and the potential harm caused by returning custody of the child
to the parents. In addition, the proof must establish at least one of several statutory grounds.
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B). The facts warranting termination of parental rights must
be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3).
When the burden of proving a disputed fact is by clear and convincing evidence, the
question that must be answered on appeal is whether the circuit court’s finding is clearly
erroneous. Dowdy, 2009 Ark. App. 180, at 11, 314 S.W.3d at 728. 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., 314 S.W.3d at 728.
We give a high degree of deference to the circuit court because it is in a far superior position
to observe the parties before it and judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id. at 11–12, 314
S.W.3d at 728.
The circuit court terminated Dejarnette’s parental rights, finding three grounds: twelve-
month failure to remedy by a custodial parent, subsequent other factors, and aggravated
9 circumstances. Although the circuit court found three statutory grounds for termination, we
may affirm a termination on only one ground. Cullum v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2022 Ark.
App. 34, at 7. We hold that the circuit court did not clearly err in finding aggravated
circumstances supported its termination order.
A court of competent jurisdiction may terminate parental rights when the parent is
found to have subjected any juvenile to aggravated circumstances. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-
341(b)(3)(B)(ix)(a)(3)(A) (Supp. 2021). Relevant to the instant case, aggravated circumstances
means that “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.” Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-
341(b)(3)(B)(ix)(a)(3)(B)(i). To prevail on this ground, DHS was required to demonstrate that
if appropriate reunification services were provided, there is little likelihood that reunification
could be achieved. Cullum, 2022 Ark. App. 34, at 7.
Dejarnette argues on appeal that the circuit court clearly erred in finding that the
aggravated-circumstances ground supports its termination decision because the evidence
demonstrates that she complied with the case plan, reached mental-health stability, and—with
continued services—could successfully reunite with her children. Dejarnette relies on her
testimony that she completed the case plan except attending four drug-counseling sessions at
New Beginnings and continuing counseling at Delta Counseling. She explains that she tried to
seek treatment with Delta Counseling but failed to consistently attend her appointments due
to scheduling confusion within Delta Counseling. She points out that her therapist, Harper,
confirmed this when she (Harper) testified that Dejarnette’s mental-health progress at Delta
Counseling was hindered by the number of therapists she had there. Harper further testified
10 that Dejarnette was compliant with her medication, was improving, and was capable of being
rehabilitated. Dejarnette also relies on the testimony of CASA Palmer, who testified that she
(Dejarnette) was appropriate when visiting her children and provided them with necessary
care. Palmer additionally testified that she was opposed to the termination of Dejarnette’s
parental rights and instead opined that Dejarnette should receive additional time to have
unsupervised visits with her children.
The circuit court found that after fifteen months of this case being open and services
being offered or made available to Dejarnette, there is little expectation that continued services
to her would result in successful reunification with her children. There is ample evidence in
the record to support this finding. For example, two protective-services cases have been filed
against Dejarnette: one for substance misuse from February 2017 to April 2018 and a second
for inadequate supervision in February 2020 to July 2020. As part of these cases, Dejarnette
received medical services, home visits, transportation, crisis intervention, housing, drug
assessment, drug screening, substance-abuse treatment (inpatient and outpatient), daycare
services, parenting education, counseling, and weekly worker and program-assistant visits.
These services proved unsuccessful as Dejarnette suffered a psychotic episode on July 28,
2020 (while the second protective-services case was pending) that led to the filing of this
dependency-neglect case.
Further, in the instant case, the circuit court’s orders consistently found that, despite
DHS’s providing multiple services to Dejarnette, she failed to comply with the case plan and
was not making meaningful progress in the case. The testimony of DHS caseworker Edington
and DHS program assistant Simpson coupled with the documents admitted into evidence
11 further demonstrate that throughout the case, Dejarnette was almost never compliant with
drug screens or home visits and that her compliance with medication management, drug
treatment, mental-health treatment, and visitation was sporadic. We have held that a parent’s
failure to benefit from the services provided demonstrates little likelihood that further services
will result in a successful reunification. Cullum, 2022 Ark. App. 34, at 9. Edington specifically
testified at the termination hearing that there were no further services that DHS could offer
Dejarnette to reunify her with her children. In Reyes-Ramos v. Arkansas Department of Human
Services, 2019 Ark. App. 46, at 11–12, 571 S.W.3d 32, 39, this court affirmed the circuit court’s
termination order under the aggravated-circumstances ground, in part, on the caseworker’s
testimony that there were no further services that DHS could offer to reunify appellant with
her children. Finally, there was evidence that during the case, Dejarnette continued to suffer
from mental-health problems and was admitted to the hospital for mental-health treatment
three times. This court has affirmed an aggravated-circumstances finding on the basis of
considerable testimony and other evidence that the parents could not overcome their mental-
health issues to appropriately parent their child. Peterson v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2020 Ark.
App. 75, at 12, 15, 595 S.W.3d 38, 45–46.
Dejarnette’s argument for reversal relies heavily on the testimony of Palmer and Harper
that favored her (Dejarnette’s) position. However, Palmer also offered testimony that supports
the circuit court’s aggravated-circumstances finding. For example, Palmer admitted that her
CASA report recommended termination of parental rights because Dejarnette’s progress was
inconsistent—she missed visits with her children, did not attend counseling appointments,
was discharged from in-home services with St. Francis for failing to meet her goal, and was
12 discharged from New Beginnings for noncompliance and not having a medication count or
drug test completed. Palmer also testified that her opinion that Dejarnette’s parental rights
should not be terminated was based on Dejarnette’s representation that she was attending her
appointments and taking her medication, and Palmer agreed that if Dejarnette was not
complying with her medical treatment and taking her medication, then she does not have the
capacity to care for her children. And while Harper testified that Dejarnette is taking her
medication, is keeping clean, is attending day treatment, and has the capability of being a good
parent, Harper conceded that she was assigned to Dejarnette’s case just one week before the
termination hearing, and other than one emergency phone call in September 2021, Harper had
had only one in-person session with Dejarnette.
In sum, Dejarnette’s argument directs us to testimony that only favors her and
essentially asks this court to reweigh the evidence in her favor, which we will not do because
credibility determinations are for the circuit court to make, not this court. Boomhower v. Ark.
Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2019 Ark. App. 397, at 8, 587 S.W.3d 231, 236. In light of the evidence
that DHS had been providing services to Dejarnette for almost a year and a half by the time
of the termination hearing, and because she failed to stabilize her mental-health issues, we
hold that the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that there is little likelihood that
additional services to the family would have resulted in successful reunification. Because only
one statutory ground is necessary to be proved to support a termination order, we need not
discuss Dejarnette’s other statutory-grounds arguments. Alexander v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs.,
2021 Ark. App. 345, at 14, 634 S.W.3d 807, 817.
13 In addition to finding the existence of at least one statutory ground in order to
terminate parental rights, a court must also find that termination of parental rights is in the
child’s best interest, taking into consideration two statutory factors: (1) the likelihood of
adoption if parental rights are terminated and (2) the potential harm caused by continuing
contact with the parent. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(A)(i), (ii). Dejarnette does not
challenge the adoptability factor; therefore, our focus is on the potential-harm prong of the
circuit court’s best-interest finding. In considering the potential harm caused by returning the
child to the parent, the court is not required to find that actual harm would result or to
affirmatively identify a potential harm. Corley v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 397,
at 8, 556 S.W.3d 538, 543. Potential harm must be viewed in a forward-looking manner and
in broad terms. Id., 556 S.W.3d at 543.
Dejarnette argues that DHS failed to prove potential harm because she had made
progress with her mental-health condition, she was not actively suffering from any related
issues and did not pose a risk of harm to her children, and it was unreasonable to deny her
request for more time when there was no mention of a plan to have her children adopted
together and no evidence presented about the children’s relationship or the impact the
termination decision would have on them. Dejarnette contends that the only way to reunify
the children with each other is through reunification with her.
For support, Dejarnette again relies on the favorable testimony of Harper and Palmer
along with her own testimony and argues that she sought help when she needed it, is
participating in treatment, is taking her medication, completed practically everything that DHS
had requested of her, and has a relationship with her children. This argument is another request
14 for this court to reweigh the evidence in favor of Dejarnette. For the reasons stated above, we
reject this argument.
Dejarnette next argues that while she is not perfect and that she had some “missteps
along the way,” this court in Rhine v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2011 Ark. App.
649, at 10–11, 386 S.W.3d 577, 583, held that flawless compliance with court orders is not
required and that the law does not require a parent to be perfect in order to retain his or her
parental rights. In Rhine, the father had complied with the case plan and was given custody of
his daughter for “phased-in expanded visits.” Id. at 4, 386 S.W.3d at 579. During that time,
two minor alcohol-related incidents occurred that were in violation of the father’s court orders
and his parole. The first incident involved the father drinking at home while the child spent
the night at a friend’s house, and the second incident involved the father and child in a car
with another passenger who had an open container of alcohol. Neither incident led to criminal
charges against the father or revocation of his parole, and at the termination hearing, the father
acknowledged his poor decisions and his need for improvement. We held these isolated and
minor incidents of noncompliance did not necessitate a termination of Rhine’s parental rights
in order to protect his child. Id. at 8, 386 S.W.3d at 581.
The circumstances here, however, are not similar to those in Rhine because unlike the
parent in Rhine, Dejarnette never demonstrated compliance with the case plan sufficient to
have custody or even unsupervised visits with her children. Further, Dejarnette’s deficiencies
cannot be characterized as “a few lapses in judgment”; rather, she consistently failed to comply
with the case plan and court orders, and she never resolved her mental-health issues.
15 Finally, Dejarnette argues the circuit court’s best-interest finding was clearly erroneous
because it failed to consider how termination would affect her children’s relationships with
each other if separated after termination. However, Dejarnette failed to preserve this argument
for appeal. Defell v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2022 Ark. App. 27, at 7 (holding that the appellant
failed to raise the sibling-separation argument before the circuit court; therefore, it was not
preserved for appeal). Further, we will not review a matter on which the circuit court has not
ruled, and the burden of obtaining a ruling is on the movant. Id.
Even assuming Dejarnette had preserved the sibling-separation argument for appeal, it
would fail. This court has held that keeping siblings together is an important consideration but
is not outcome determinative because the best interest of each child is the polestar
consideration. Dollins v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2022 Ark. App. 306, at 5. Furthermore,
evidence of a genuine sibling bond is required to reverse a best-interest finding based on the
severance-of-a-sibling-relationship argument. Id. at 5–6.
In the case at bar, there was no evidence presented at the termination hearing of a
sibling bond between Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2, Minor Child 3, and Minor Child 4. The
evidence merely shows that Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2, and Minor Child 3 are together in
relative placement and that Minor Child 4 is in the custody of foster parents. There was some
evidence that the children are together during supervised visitation with Dejarnette, but there
was also testimony that visitation was irregular. Without some evidence of the existence of a
sibling bond, we hold that the circuit court did not clearly err in finding termination was in the
best interest of Minor Child 1, Minor Child 2, Minor Child 3, and Minor Child 4.
16 Affirmed.
MURPHY and BROWN, 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.