Tanya Taylor v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Chidren

2020 Ark. App. 227

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: April 15, 2020
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 227 Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS document Date: 2021-07-06 12:52:46 Foxit PhantomPDF Version: DIVISION IV 9.7.5 No. CV-19-944

Opinion Delivered: April 15, 2020 TANYA TAYLOR APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE GREENE V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 28JV-2018-176] ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR CHILDREN HONORABLE BARBARA HALSEY, APPELLEES JUDGE AFFIRMED

RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge

Tanya Taylor appeals the Greene County Circuit Court order terminating her

parental rights to her children, C.T.1, C.T.2, C.T.3, and D.B. On appeal, Taylor argues

that the circuit court erred by denying her request for a new attorney at the termination

hearing. We affirm.

On August 6, 2018, the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a

petition for emergency custody and dependency-neglect of C.T.1, C.T.2, C.T.3, and D.B.

In the affidavit attached to the petition, DHS alleged that a report was made to the child-

abuse hotline that C.T.1 had been living with an unrelated male, Jerry McKee, for two

months and that McKee had been sexually abusing the child. When DHS confronted Taylor

with the allegations, she did not believe that C.T.1 had been abused. Further, when DHS

later inspected Taylor’s home, the DHS worker found it unsafe for children. On the same day the petition was filed, the circuit court entered an ex parte order for emergency custody.

In that order, the court appointed Ben Bristow as Taylor’s attorney.

On August 17, the circuit court held a probable-cause hearing and entered an order

on September 21. The court found probable cause for the emergency custody. On

September 21, the court adjudicated the children dependent-neglected based on the abuse

of C.T.1 and environmental neglect by Taylor.

On February 7, 2019, the attorney ad litem filed a petition for termination of Taylor’s

parental rights alleging three grounds for termination. The petition noted that Taylor was

incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction. On May 5, the court held a

termination hearing, but the court dismissed the petition against Taylor for lack of service.

On May 20, the attorney ad litem filed a second petition for termination of Taylor’s

parental rights alleging three grounds for termination. The court set the termination hearing

for August 15.

On July 11, the court entered an order substituting counsel for Taylor. Specifically,

the court stated that Bristow would no longer be serving as parent counsel in Greene

County, and it appointed Stacy Bryant Ryall to represent Taylor. On July 12, the court

continued the termination hearing to August 27 due to Ryall’s unavailability.

On August 27, the court held a termination hearing. At the onset of the hearing,

Taylor requested that the court appoint her new counsel because she believed Ryall was

working for DHS. She further stated that Ryall had advised her to relinquish her parental

rights and that Ryall had not advocated for her or her children’s best interest. The court

found that Taylor had not alleged good cause to release Ryall, but it informed Taylor that

2 she had the constitutional right to represent herself. The court, however, advised Taylor

against self-representation. Taylor responded, “If she’s all I got, then I guess I take her.” The

court thereafter proceeded with a two-day termination hearing. On September 27, the court

entered an order terminating Taylor’s parental rights on the three grounds pled in the

petition. This appeal followed.

Taylor raises one issue on appeal. She argues that the circuit court committed

reversible error by denying her request for new counsel at the termination hearing. She

claims that by denying her request, the court violated her Sixth Amendment right to counsel

of one’s choosing. She asserts that the circumstances here are similar to those in a

postconviction criminal case, Arroyo v. State, 2013 Ark. 244, 428 S.W.3d 464, wherein our

supreme court held that the circuit court erred in denying a criminal defendant’s request to

hire a new attorney because it failed to conduct any balancing test. Taylor points out that

in this case, the circuit court did not conduct a balancing test and required her to prove

good cause.

However, Taylor did not raise the argument to the circuit court that her

constitutional rights had been violated. Even in a case involving the termination of parental

rights, we will not consider arguments made for the first time on appeal. Langston v. Ark.

Dep’t of Human Servs., 2019 Ark. 152, 574 S.W.3d 138; Myers v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs.,

91 Ark. App. 53, 208 S.W.3d 241 (2005). Parties are bound by the scope of the arguments

3 presented at the trial level. Langston, 2019 Ark. 152, 574 S.W.3d 138. Accordingly, we

cannot address the merits of Taylor’s constitutional argument.1

Affirmed.

KLAPPENBACH and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

Tabitha McNulty, Arkansas Commission for Parent Counsel, for appellant.

Andrew Firth, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.

Kimberly Boling Bibb, attorney ad litem for minor children.

1 We further point out that in this case, Taylor requested the appointment of new counsel whereas in Arroyo, the defendant had sought to retain a new attorney. The Arroyo court specifically noted that “‘the right to counsel of choice does not extend to defendants who require counsel to be appointed for them.’” Arroyo, 2013 Ark. 244, at 5 n.2, 428 S.W.3d at 468 n.2 (quoting U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 151 (2006)).