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.