Latisha Gilbert v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children

2020 Ark. App. 256, 599 S.W.3d 725

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: April 22, 2020
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 256 Reason: I attest to the accuracy ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS and integrity of this document Date: 2021-06-15 16:53:03 Foxit PhantomPDF Version: DIVISION IV 9.7.5 No. CV-19-946

Opinion Delivered April 22, 2020 LATISHA GILBERT APPEAL FROM THE JOHNSON APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 36JV-18-70] V. HONORABLE KEN D. COKER, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF JUDGE HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR CHILDREN

APPELLEES AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Judge

Appellant Latisha Gilbert appeals from the September 2019 order of the Johnson

County Circuit Court terminating her parental rights to her two daughters, LT and KT.1

Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a no-merit brief 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(i), setting forth all adverse rulings from the termination

hearing and asserting that there are no issues of arguable merit to raise on appeal. The clerk

of this court mailed a certified copy of counsel’s motion and brief to appellant’s last-known

The parental rights of the children’s father, Michael Thompson, were also 1

terminated, but he does not appeal. Thompson did not participate in the case and was found to have abandoned the children. address informing her of her right to file pro se points for reversal, but she has filed no

points. We affirm the circuit court’s order and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

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. Houseman v. Ark.

Dep’t of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. App. 227, 491 S.W.3d 153. 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 juvenile 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 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.

As explained by counsel, the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS)

became involved with this family in May 2018. Gilbert was under the influence of drugs

(methamphetamine, amphetamine, and marijuana) and unable to adequately supervise her

children, and the home was environmentally unsafe. KT was five, and LT was not yet one

year old. A protective-services case was opened, but by July 2018, efforts to help Gilbert

rectify the children’s living situation had not been fruitful. The maternal grandmother was

not a suitable caretaker; she later tested positive for numerous drugs and her home was

2 environmentally unsound. Despite DHS’s provision of services, Gilbert continued to

exhibit extremely erratic behavior, and the girls were often notably unclean.

Gilbert did not attend the adjudication hearing, although she was represented by

counsel, and the circuit court found the girls to be dependent-neglected. Gilbert was

ordered to complete the case plan and take advantage of the reunification services. Over the

next year, Gilbert did not put forth sustained efforts to comply nor did she maintain

meaningful progress. By the time of the termination hearing in September 2019, the

evidence showed that Gilbert had moved from place to place (including to an unsuitable,

dilapidated camper trailer on her mother’s property); she sporadically visited the girls,

missing about half of the offered visits; she did not complete outpatient drug treatment and

was dismissed from the program; she failed to keep a job for more than a few days or weeks;

and there were concerns of alcohol abuse. Gilbert did not deny her failings and agreed she

had made a big mistake by being absent for a long time. Gilbert maintained that she loves

her children and asked for additional time to “pull this together.”

The caseworker testified that KT and LT were adoptable, that KT and LT had no

impediments or barriers to adoption, and that their best interest would be served by

terminating parental rights. The attorney ad litem agreed that the girls should be cleared for

adoption, pointing to Gilbert’s numerous failures to comply with the case plan. The CASA

volunteer agreed with the recommendations to terminate parental rights.

The circuit court found that DHS had proved, by clear and convincing evidence,

two statutory grounds for termination (one-year failure-to-remedy ground and subsequent-

3 other-issues ground)2 and that it was in the girls’ best interest to terminate Gilbert’s parental

rights. The circuit court explained that it had considered the likelihood that the girls would

be adopted and the potential harm to the girls if returned to their mother’s custody. A

detailed four-page order was entered, memorializing the circuit court’s findings.

There could be no issue of arguable merit to raise on appeal as to the sufficiency of

the statutory grounds. Proof of only one statutory ground is sufficient to terminate parental

rights. Davis v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2019 Ark. App. 406, 587 S.W.3d 57. We focus

on the subsequent-other-issues ground:

That other factors or issues arose subsequent to the filing of the original petition for dependency-neglect that demonstrate that placement of the juvenile in the custody of the parent is contrary to the juvenile’s health, safety, or welfare and that, despite the offer of appropriate family services, the parent has manifested the incapacity or indifference to remedy the subsequent issues or factors or rehabilitate the parent’s circumstances that prevent the placement of the juvenile in the custody of the parent.

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a).

There was ample evidence to support the finding that Gilbert was unable or

unwilling to put forth the effort required to make herself a safe, suitable parent for her

daughters. Gilbert was unable or unwilling to provide her daughters an appropriate place to

live or stable and adequate income. Gilbert acknowledged that after a year she was still not

ready to have her children return to her custody and instead asked for more time. In

addition, there was proof that the girls were adoptable and that there was potential harm to

them if returned to their mother’s custody, so there was sufficient evidence to support the

finding that it was in their best interest to terminate parental rights. Counsel correctly states

2 See Ark. Code Ann. section 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a) and 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a) (Supp. 2019), respectively. 4 that there were no other rulings adverse to Gilbert in the termination proceeding, other

than the termination decision itself.

After carefully examining 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 grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the order terminating appellant’s parental rights to

LT and KT.

Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.

ABRAMSON and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

Leah Lanford, Arkansas Commission for Parent Counsel, for appellant.

One brief only.