Rebecca Ross v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

JUDGE KAREN R. BAKER

DIVISION I

REBECCA ROSS

APPELLANT

v.

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

APPELLEE

CA02-694

APRIL 9, 2003

APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[EJ-98-91, EJ-98-374]

HONORABLE MARK HEWETT, CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant appeals the termination of her parental rights to her four minor children. The case involves a long procedural history spanning over four years.

Appellant and her family were brought into the court system in February of 1998. A family-in-need-of-services petition was filed against appellant's oldest son, P.R., on February 18, 1998, alleging that he was habitually disobedient to the reasonable and lawful commands of his parents. At the time of the petition, P.R. was six years old. Allegations included that he scratched and bit teachers, cussed teachers and classmates, and that his mother was uncooperative with school officials. The child was found to be a member of a family in need of services and was placed in the custody of DHS.

A review hearing was held on April 17, 1998, where the mother appeared with counsel. The

court ordered that the child remain in the custody of DHS and found that DHS provided reasonableefforts to achieve the goal of reunification, specifically counseling for the mother and a referral for medication management. Appellant suffered from schizophrenia and stated she took Seoquel and Prozac. Appellant was ordered, among other things, to obtain suitable and stable housing, appropriately supervise her other children, cooperate with parenting classes and lay therapy, and cooperate with the DHS caseworker and homemaker.

On July 9, 1998, a petition for emergency custody of the three other Ross children was filed alleging the mother's lack of supervision, poor parenting, her inability to handle the children, fire hazards in the home and lack of stable housing with the mother and children being evicted from their last two residences. This petition also included specific incidents of special concern. In one reported incident, the two-year-old child fell out of a second story window, and neighbors who witnessed the fall retrieved the crying child and returned him to his mother who was unaware he was missing. In another, the five-year-old child was lost and then found in an apartment with adults unknown to her. In addition, an incident was reported where the eight-year-old son was in the parking lot of the apartment building waving a butcher knife, holding it to another child's throat while threatening to cut the child, and cutting an older child who tried to get the knife away from him. Reports were made concerning the children scavenging for food in the apartments of neighbors. An order for emergency custody was entered on July 9, 1998, and the children were placed in DHS custody. A probable cause hearing was held July 16, 1998, wherein the court found probable cause that an emergency condition existed and that custody should remain with DHS.

The children were adjudicated dependent-neglected on August 13, 1998. The court found that DHS made reasonable efforts to provide services to the family, including referrals for housing, counseling, a family support specialist and other services. The mother was ordered to attend counseling, maintain a stable, appropriate and clean home, and comply with the case plan.

Another review was held on September 22, 1998, regarding P.R. Again, the court ordered that the child remain in the custody of DHS and found that DHS provided reasonable efforts to achieve the goal of reunification, specifically counseling for the mother and a referral for medication management. Appellant was ordered, among other things, to obtain suitable and stable housing, appropriately supervise her children, complete parenting classes, continue counseling, follow counseling recommendations, and follow the case plan.

The other children's case was reviewed on January 14, 1999. Again the court ordered that the children remain in the custody of DHS and found that DHS provided reasonable efforts to achieve that goal of reunification, specifically referrals for parenting, lay therapy, counseling and psychiatric care. The court found that appellant only partially complied with the case plan and that she needed to learn how to manage and control her children.

A permanency planning hearing was held February 23, 1999, with regard to P.R. The court found that appellant had made progress, but that custody of the child remained with DHS. The court ordered the appellant to appropriately supervise the children during visits, continue counseling and continue taking her medications as prescribed.

A permanency planning hearing was held on July 6, 1999, regarding all the children and they were returned to the custody of appellant. The court found that DHS made reasonable efforts to deliver services and ordered appellant to continue counseling, stay on medication, and maintain suitable and stable housing and income.

A review was held for all of the children on November 23, 1999, and the children remained in the custody of appellant. The court found that DHS made reasonable efforts and exercised reasonable diligence and care to utilize all available services related to meeting the needs of the family.

On March 28, 2000, a review was held and all the children remained in the custody of appellant. The court found that DHS made reasonable efforts and exercised reasonable diligence and care to utilize all available services related to meeting the needs of the family.

Another review was held on August 29, 2000. The court ordered that custody of the children remain with appellant, that appellant continue counseling and that she take her medications.

A motion for ex parte change of custody of P.R. was filed September 1, 2000. An Order of Emergency Custody was entered that same day placing P.R. into DHS custody.

At the September 13, 2000, probable cause and adjudication hearing, the court found the child to be dependent-neglected based upon the allegations set forth in the affidavit attached to the petition. The court found that efforts to prevent removal were reasonable, and ordered that custody of the child remain with DHS and that prior orders of the court which do not conflict with the order shall remain in effect. At the December 19, 2000, review hearing, the court found that DHS made reasonable efforts to provide services and that custody of P.R. should remain with DHS.

A review was held for the remaining three children on January 16, 2001. The court found that DHS made reasonable efforts and that custody of these three children remain with appellant. Another review hearing for these three was held on April 17, 2001. The court ordered that the children remain in the custody of appellant and found that DHS provided reasonable efforts.

The permanency planning hearing was held on May 15, 2001. The court again found that DHS had made reasonable efforts to provide services. The court further found that appellant had made measurable progress and continued the goal of reunification, but custody of P.R. remained with DHS.

A motion for ex parte change of custody of appellant's second son, N.R., was filed July 9, 2001. Specific incidents over a three-month period, citing a lack of supervision increasing inseverity, were set forth culminating in his entering neighborhood homes without permission and engaging in mischievous acts and stealing in the few days preceding the ex parte motion. An Order of Emergency Custody was entered on that same day. A change of custody order was later entered with regard to N.R., and the court again found that DHS made reasonable efforts.

A motion for ex parte change of custody of the remaining two children was filed July 24, 2001, and an Order of Emergency Custody was entered on the next day. This motion was filed after DHS was notified by a police officer that Ms. Ross's remaining two children were at the home unattended while Ms. Ross was attempting to arrange for bail money. A change of custody order was later entered with regard to both children and the court again found that DHS made reasonable efforts.

On October 23, 2001, the case was reviewed again. The court continued custody of the children with DHS and changed the goal to termination and adoption. The court again found that DHS made reasonable efforts to provide services.

A petition for termination of parental rights was filed. DHS sought termination against appellant on the grounds that the children were adjudicated dependent-neglected, had remained out of the home for a period of at least one year, and that despite a meaningful effort by DHS to provide services, the mother was unable or unwilling to remedy the conditions which caused removal. The petition further sought termination on the ground that subsequent factors arose since the filing of the petition which demonstrated that return of the juveniles was contrary to their health, safety or welfare.

A termination hearing was held on March 1, 2002. Testimony included observations from a case worker who had worked with the family for four years. Her testimony was that Ms. Ross had deteriorated and was, at the time of the termination hearing, in the worst position that she had everseen her. A health care professional testified that Ms. Ross had refused to allow her to even see her medications when rejecting her offer to assist Ms. Ross with her medication management. This witness expressed her belief that Ms. Ross was not taking her medications as prescribed. The children's therapist confirmed that Ms. Ross's cooperation and ability to manage the children was sporadic and that it was difficult for Ms. Ross to care for herself or her children. She also stated that Ms. Ross was not capable of meeting the children's behavioral needs. The court terminated Ms. Ross's parental rights. This appeal followed alleging that the trial court erred because the decision was not sufficiently supported by the evidence.

We find no error in the court's termination of parental rights. Termination of parental rights is an extreme remedy in derogation of the natural rights of parents, and the facts warranting termination of parental rights must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Crawford v. Dept. of Human Servs., 330 Ark. 152, 951 S.W.2d 310 (1997). Yet, parental rights should not be allowed to continue to the detriment of the child's welfare and best interest. Baker v. Arkansas Dep't H. Servs., 340 Ark. 42, 8 S.W.3d 499 (2000). After four years of receiving services to assist her family, Ms. Ross was in the worst position that a long-time case worker had ever seen her. At best, her ability to even care for herself was sporadic, and she was not capable of meeting the children's behavioral needs. Her children's collective behavior deteriorated from acts of biting and cussing at school teachers to attacking playmates with a knife. The children were left scavenging for food and roaming the neighborhood, leading to stealing and other socially unacceptable acts. Under these circumstances, the court's finding that despite Ms. Ross having completed parenting classes and other services, that she still did not have the skills or ability to provide for the needs of these children, is not in error.

Accordingly, we affirm.

Gladwin and Neal, JJ., agree.