Steven Folsom v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children

2022 Ark. App. 29

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: January 26, 2022
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2022 Ark. App. 29 Elizabeth Perry ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document DIVISION III 2023.08.15 11:57:23 -05'00' No. CV-21-400 2023.003.20269 Opinion Delivered January 26, 2022

STEVEN FOLSOM APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, TENTH DIVISION V. [NO. 60JV-20-124]

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HONORABLE SHANICE JOHNSON, HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR JUDGE CHILDREN APPELLEES AFFIRMED

BRANDON J. HARRISON, Chief Judge

Steven Folsom appeals the circuit court’s termination of his parental rights to his two

daughters, HF and GF. (The circuit court also terminated the parental rights of the

children’s mother, Brittany Folsom, but she is not a party to this appeal.) He argues that

the circuit court erred in finding that termination was in his children’s best interest. We

affirm the circuit court’s decision.

In January 2020, the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) obtained

custody of twenty-month-old HF and eight-month-old GF after Steven was arrested for

shoplifting and both parents tested positive for methamphetamine. After adjudicating the

children dependent-neglected due to neglect and parental unfitness, the circuit court set the

goal of the case as reunification of the children with a fit parent with a concurrent goal of

guardianship with a fit and willing relative.

1 The circuit court reviewed the case in June 2020 and found that both parents had

made minimal progress and were still unfit. Another review in October 2020 demonstrated

that the parents remained unfit. In February 2021, the circuit court changed the

permanency goal to authorizing a plan for adoption. DHS petitioned to terminate parental

rights, and the circuit court convened a hearing on 5 April 2021.

Lakisha Tatum, the DHS family-service worker assigned to the case, testified that the

children had been in foster care for fourteen months. She explained that Steven had been

partially compliant but had not completed parenting classes or a second inpatient drug

treatment as recommended. Tatum said that the children faced potential harm if placed

back with their parents due to a lack of stable housing and ongoing substance abuse. She

explained that DHS still had concerns that Steven was using illicit substances and would be

unable to appropriately parent the children.

Steven testified that it was not in his children’s best interest for his rights to be

terminated because he has a special bond with them. He said that he had always been the

one up at night with them when they needed to be changed or fed and that it would

“devastate” the children to be completely separated from him. Steven’s attorney echoed

this sentiment during closing statements and requested more time “as it relates to best

interest.”

From the bench, the circuit court found that DHS had proved statutory grounds for

termination and that termination was in the children’s best interest. The court specifically

found that it was not in the children’s best interest to continue “to wait on the parents to

do the things that are necessary in order to have the children safely returned to them.” The

2 court also found that Steven had not adequately addressed his substance abuse and was not

credible in his testimony on that issue. The circuit court entered a written order terminating

parental rights on 25 May 2021, and Steven filed a timely notice of appeal from this order.

Termination-of-parental-rights cases are reviewed de novo. Tillman v. Ark. Dep’t of

Hum. Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 119. 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. Williams v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2013 Ark. App. 622. In

resolving the clearly erroneous question, we give due regard to the opportunity of the circuit

court to judge the credibility of witnesses. Camarillo-Cox v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 360

Ark. 340, 201 S.W.3d 391 (2005).

On appeal, Steven challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s

best-interest determination. Specifically, he argues that DHS failed to show that termination

was in the children’s best interest because he does not pose a danger to his children, he has

a bond with them, and DHS failed to diligently pursue relative placement during the case

despite it being a concurrent goal of the case. He asserts that this failure by DHS combined

with his progress during the case and his bond with his children warranted the circuit court’s

granting his request for more time. Steven also notes that the case had been open for only

fifteen months at the time of the termination hearing, and there was no evidence that it

would be detrimental to give him additional time to work toward reunification and give

DHS additional time to perform its due diligence with respect to relative placement.

3 DHS first responds that termination of parental rights will not be reversed on the

basis of a parent’s bond with the child. See Holdcraft v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2019 Ark.

App. 151, 573 S.W.3d 555. And while Steven might not have posed a danger to his children

at visitation or at the time of the termination hearing, there was evidence that the children

would face potential harm if returned to his care because he had continued to test positive

for illegal drugs and had not obtained stable housing.

DHS also contends that Steven’s argument regarding relative placement is not

preserved for review because he failed to raise this argument to the circuit court. See Cole

v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2020 Ark. App. 481, 611 S.W.3d 218 (holding that mother

failed to preserve for appellate review her argument that circuit court erred in not

considering alternatives for permanency less restrictive than termination of her parental

rights, where mother did not make argument at termination hearing). The attorney ad litem

agrees that Steven’s argument on relative placement is not preserved, and the ad litem further

argues that the children’s need for permanency outweighs Steven’s desire for more time to

work toward stability. See McElwee v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2016 Ark. App. 214, 489

S.W.3d 704 (holding that a child’s need for permanency overrides a parent’s request for

additional time to improve circumstances).

The circuit court’s best-interest finding reflects the primary purpose of the juvenile

code, which is to provide permanency and stability in a child’s life when the child cannot

be returned to the family home within a reasonable amount of time as viewed from the

child’s perspective. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(a)(3) (Supp. 2021). We hold that Steven’s

relative-placement argument is not preserved and that considering the facts of this case and

4 the children’s need for permanency, the circuit court did not err in its best-interest

determination.

Affirmed.

KLAPPENBACH and HIXSON, 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.

Casey D. Copeland, attorney ad litem for minor children.