Yvette Sansom v. Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION  DIVISION I  CA07­600  OCTOBER  31, 2007  YVETTE SANSOM  APPELLANT  APPEAL  FROM  THE  CRAIGHEAD  COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, WESTERN  DISTRICT,  [NO. JV­06­351]  V. HON. LARRY BOLING,  JUDGE  ARKANSAS  DEPARTMENT  OF  HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES  APPELLEE  AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW  GRANTED  On April 12, 2007, the Craighead County Circuit Court entered an order terminating  the parental rights of appellant Yvette Sansom to her son, C.S., born August 30, 2006.  Her  attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a no­merit brief pursuant to Linker­Flores v.  Arkansas Department of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004), and Ark.  Sup. Ct. R. 4­3(j)(1). The clerk of this court sent a certified copy of counsel’s brief and  motion to withdraw to appellant, informing her that she had the right to file pro se points for  reversal under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4­3(j)(2).  Appellant did not submit any pro se points for  appeal.  Counsel’s motion was accompanied by a brief correctly stating that, because there  were no claims or objections made by appellant at the  termination hearing, there are no adverse  rulings  made  by  the  circuit  court  that  could  constitute  meritorious  grounds  for  appeal.  The only possible issue on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the  circuit court’s decision to terminate appellant’s parental rights; therefore, counsel has also  included a discussion of the sufficiency of the evidence and has explained why there is no  meritorious argument to be made regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.  We agree with  counsel  that  the  appeal  is  wholly  without  merit  and  therefore  grant  counsel’s  motion  to  withdraw and affirm the order terminating appellant’s parental rights.  On  September  1,  2006,  the  Arkansas  Department  of  Health  and  Human  Services  (DHHS)  exercised  a  seventy­two  hour  hold  on  C.S.,  born  August  30,  2006,  when  both  appellant and C.S. tested positive for methamphetamine.  DHHS also noted as a basis for  removing C.S. from appellant’s custody that appellant’s parental rights to her older son had  been  terminated  in  July  2006  when  DHHS  discovered  that  appellant  had  an  active  methamphetamine lab in her home.  In an adjudication order entered on October 5, 2006, the  circuit court found that C.S. was dependent­neglected and set termination as the goal of the  case.  Appellant  was  incarcerated  on  November  1,  2006,  and  sentenced  to  twenty­four  months  in  a  regional  punishment  facility  when  her  probation  was  revoked.  At  the  termination hearing held on April 12, 2007, appellant testified that she would be eligible for  parole on October 31, 2007.  On April 12, 2007, after the termination hearing, the circuit  court entered an order terminating appellant’s parental rights to C.S.  Under Arkansas Code Annotated § 9­27­341(b)(3) (Supp. 2005), a court may properly  issue an order terminating parental rights if the court finds that it is in the best interest of the ­2­  CA07­600  juvenile and one or more of the statutory grounds listed is present.  In this case, the circuit  court found that it would be contrary to the child’s best interests, health and safety, and  welfare to return him to appellant’s care and custody.  The court also held that DHHS had  proven the following grounds by clear and convincing evidence.  First, DHHS proved  that  appellant had subjected C.S. to aggravated circumstances by using methamphetamine during  the course of her pregnancy, including its use two days before C.S. was born, and admitting  to the court that she was aware that it would be harmful to her child. See Ark. Code Ann. §  9­27­341(b)(3)(A) & (B)(ix)(a)(3) (Supp. 2005).  The circuit court also found that appellant’s  parental rights were involuntarily terminated to a sibling of C.S.  See Ark.  Code Ann. §  9­27­341(b)(3)(B)(ix)(a)(4) (Supp. 2005). Finally, the circuit court found that appellant had  been sentenced in a criminal proceeding for a period of time that constituted a substantial  period of C.S.’s life.  See Ark. Code Ann. § 9­27­341(b)(3)(B)(viii) (Supp. 2005).  After  carefully examining the record, we find that counsel has complied with the  requirements established by the Arkansas Supreme Court for no­merit motions in termination  cases and that counsel has sufficiently explained why there is no meritorious argument to be  made regarding the sufficiency of the evidence in this case.  Accordingly, we hold that the  appeal is wholly without merit, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm the order  terminating appellant’s parental rights.  Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.  GLADWIN  and HEFFLEY, JJ., agree. ­3­  CA07­600 

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.