Angelia Brown v. Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
LARRY D. VAUGHT, JUDGE
DIVISION II
CA06-1301
May 23, 2007
ANGELIA BROWN
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE JOHNSON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[J-04-75]
V.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES
APPELLEE
HON. KENNETH COKER, JR.,
CIRCUIT JUDGE
AFFIRMED
Appellant Angelia Brown appeals from the decision terminating her parental rights to
her minor child. She argues that the trial court’s order should be reversed because the record
did not support the trial court’s findings. We disagree and affirm.
On May 28, 2004, Brown dropped her three children off at the home of an
acquaintance, Loren Olsen—and left them—stating that she “could not deal with them right
now.” After three days, Mr. Olsen called the police department because he could no longer
care for the children. After several unsuccessful attempts to find Brown, DHHS took a
seventy-two-hour hold on the children, alleging that they had been abandoned by their mother.
After being taken into DHHS custody, the children revealed that while in their mother’s care
they were often forced to go without food. They could not understand why their mother had
sufficient funds to stay at bars all night, but not enough money to feed them. On June 2, 2004,
an emergency order was entered, placing custody of the children in DHHS until an adjudication
hearing could be held.
On July 1, 2004, the children were adjudicated dependent/neglected. The trial court
determined that the goal of the case would be reunification and directed DHHS to develop a
case plan outlining the “objectives and tasks” related to achieving the stated goal. The court
specifically ordered Brown to participate in individual counseling, obtain and maintain gainful
employment and suitable housing, submit to a drug and alcohol abuse assessment, and attend
and complete parenting classes. However, on August 4, 2005, the court changed the goal of
the case relating to Brown’s youngest child, L.M., from reunification to termination based on
Brown’s failure to comply with the case-plan directive. A termination hearing was scheduled
for January 17, 2006.
Following this hearing, the trial court entered an order on May 5, 2006, terminating
Brown’s parental rights to L.M. after it found that Brown had not completed court-ordered
substance-abuse treatment; that she had refused outpatient treatment until the termination
petition was filed; that she failed to establish a stable home; and that she neglected to maintain
visitation with the minor child for weeks at a time. Based on these findings—coupled with
evidence that the child had continued out of his mother’s home for over twelve months and
there was a great likelihood that he would be adopted— the court concluded that clear and
2
convincing evidence established that it was contrary to the best interests, health and safety, and
welfare of L.M. to return him to his mother. It is from this order that Brown appeals.
Parental-rights termination cases are reviewed de novo on appeal. Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t
of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (2001). An order terminating parental rights
must be based on clear and convincing evidence. Id.; Ark. Code Ann.§ 9-27-341(b)(3) (Repl.
2002). In reviewing the trial court’s evaluation of the evidence, an appellate court will not
reverse unless the trial court’s finding of clear and convincing evidence is clearly erroneous.
Baker v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 340 Ark. 42, 8 S.W.3d 499 (2000). Clear and
convincing evidence is that degree of proof that will produce in the fact finder a firm conviction
regarding the allegation sought to be established. Id. In resolving the clearly erroneous
question, we must give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility
of witnesses. Id. Additionally, in matters involving the welfare of young children, the appellate
court gives great weight to the trial judge’s personal observations. Ullom v. Ark. Dep’t of
Human Servs., 340 Ark. 615, 12 S.W.3d 204 (2000).
On appeal, Brown argues that although she “did not offer documentary proof that she
had maintained sobriety as of October 2005, or that she was in counseling, [DHHS]
abandon[ed her] after [the permanency planning hearing] and wholly failed to verify
compliance with the case plan during that time because of lack of contact with her.” She also
3
contends that the “trial court failed to adequately consider the adoptability of L.M.” in violation
of Arkansas law.
The record belies Brown’s assertions of error and shows that she was extremely
deficient in her case-plan compliance, particularly in the areas relating to her substance-abuse
problem. We are most concerned with the fact that Brown failed to correct the fundamental
deficiency that caused her child to be taken into DHHS custody in the first place—her lack of
sobriety. The only proof of Brown’s continued sobriety was her own self-serving testimony,
while empirical evidence was presented establishing that she dropped out of treatment based
on her desire to continue drinking. Additionally, there was evidence showing that Brown had
lived in nine different places during the pendency of the case, and although she had lived with
the same man (a convicted felon) for the three months preceding the termination hearing, there
was no proof that she had established an independent, safe, and stable home in which she and
her son could reside. Finally, both families who had fostered L.M. testified that he was highly
adoptable and was interested in being adopted.
Based on the record before us, we conclude that the trial court’s findings of fact relating
to its decision to sever Brown’s parental rights to L.M. were supported by clear and convincing
evidence and did not violate any statutory mandate relating to termination proceedings.
Affirmed.
M ARSHALL and H EFFLEY, JJ., agree.
4
5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
