Tiffaney Hawkins v. Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
WENDELL L. GRIFFEN, JUDGE
DIVISION III
CA07-94
June 6, 2007
TIFFANEY HAWKINS
APPELLANT
AN APPEAL FROM MILLER
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[JV2004-286-2]
V.
HON. JIM HUDSON, JUDGE
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW IS GRANTED
On February 7, 2005, the Miller County Circuit Court entered an order terminating
Tiffaney Hawkins’s parental rights to her daughter, L.M. (born February 18, 2003). Her
attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and a no-merit brief pursuant to Linker-Flores v.
Arkansas Department of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004) and Ark.
Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(1). The clerk of this court sent a certified copy of counsel’s brief and the
motion to be relieved to appellant, informing her that she had the right to file pro se points for
reversal under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(2). Another person signed for the package. The clerk
delivered a second packet to a new address provided by counsel, but the second packet was
returned as undeliverable. In any event, no pro se points were filed by appellant. Arkansas
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) did not file a brief.
Counsel’s motion was accompanied by a brief listing all adverse rulings made at the
termination hearing and explaining why there is no meritorious ground for reversal to each
ruling, including a discussion of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the termination order
based on evidence presented at all the prior proceedings that were incorporated in the record
of the termination proceeding, as required by Lewis v. Arkansas Department of Human
Services, 364 Ark. 243, 217 S.W.3d 788 (2005).
After carefully examining the record, we find that counsel has complied with the
requirements established by the Arkansas Supreme Court for no-merit motions in termination
cases, and we hold that the appeal is wholly without merit. We hold that the trial court’s
decision to terminate appellant’s parental rights was not clearly erroneous where the record
established: (1) appellant’s one-year-old child (L.M.) was severely injured by a pit bull dog
after she was left outside alone in proximity to the dog; (2) appellant returned the child to a
residence where pit bulls were kept after DHHS issued a true finding of inadequate
supervision; (3) L.M. was adjudicated dependent-neglected on August 30, 2005; (4) appellant
failed to complete an inpatient program at the River Ridge substance abuse treatment facility;
(5) appellant tested positive for a controlled substance on two occasions during February 2006;
(6) appellant was unreliable concerning her places of residence on several occasions; (7)
appellant failed to regularly or consistently exercise visitation with L.M.; and (8) appellant
failed to obtain employment or steady housing so as to be able to provide for the needs of L.M.
2
Consequently, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the order terminating
appellant’s parental rights.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
H ART and GLOVER, JJ., agree.
3
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.
