Clarise Collins v. Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
JUDGE DAVID M. GLOVER
DIVISION II
CA08-157
May 28, 2008
CLARISE COLLINS
v.
APPELLANT
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
APPELLEE
AN APPEAL FROM PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[No. JJN2006-454]
HONORABLE WILEY BRANTON, JR.
JUDGE
AFFIRMED
Clarise Collins has appealed from an order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court
terminating her parental rights to her children, L.C., born February 21, 2000; K.C.-1, born
October 28, 2003; K.C.-2, born July 8, 2005; and K.C.-3, born July 8, 2005. She challenges
the trial court’s findings that the children were adoptable and that grounds existed for
termination. We affirm the circuit court’s decision.
DHS filed a petition for dependency-neglect on March 8, 2006, but did not exercise
an emergency hold on the children. An adjudication hearing was held on April 25, 2006. In
the adjudication order, the circuit court made the following findings:
The mother appears to be overwhelmed and is not meeting the medical needs
of the children and the evidence supports a finding of neglect. The children have
medical disabilities including sickle cell, asthma and the twins are premature and
require a lot of immediate medical attention. The mother appears to have mental
health issues and has an anger control problem and has not been cooperating with the
Department.
The trial court ordered appellant to submit to a psychological evaluation and to follow
all recommendations; to begin individual therapy as soon as possible, regardless of the
outcome of the psychological evaluation; to attend and complete parenting classes; to be
drug-tested; and to cooperate with the department, the court, and her attorney. The court
ordered DHS to provide intensive family services, including at least weekly visits to appellant’s
home.
A permanency-planning hearing was held on August 22, 2006. The court continued
the goal of reunification, and the children remained in appellant’s home. The court found that
DHS had not made reasonable efforts to provide reunification services and made the
following findings:
The prognosis in this case is poor. The Court feels like It is waiting for a train
wreck to happen. Ms. Collins’ psychological evaluation, received into evidence today,
is not encouraging at all, to put it mildly, and Dr. [Paul] Deyoub states that there will
likely be no end to the Department’s involvement with the family. The Home Study
received into evidence today also does nothing to inspire any confidence in the Court.
Given all of this, the Court must pose the question that even if the children are not
in immediate danger, what kind of environment are the children growing up in and
what kind of stimuli are they receiving and can they ever rise above this without
further Court intervention?
The court directed appellant to follow all previous orders.
A permanency-planning hearing was held on January 16, 2007. The court entered an
order providing that the children would remain in appellant’s home, as recommended by
DHS. The court noted that appellant had completed parenting classes; had submitted to a
psychological evaluation; had participated in counseling; and had submitted to a home study.
The court stated, however, that it was extremely concerned about her low-functioning
2
abilities and her anger. The court noted that, at the hearing as the court delivered its ruling,
appellant engaged in an inappropriate outburst because she was offended by the court’s referral
to her as “low-functioning,” as the psychologist had diagnosed. The court stated that appellant
had yelled at the court and had quieted down only when she was threatened with jail time.
The court stated:
The Court continues to believe she is her own worst enemy and said as much
following her outburst today. The Court has gone against Its instincts at every turn of
this case, as indicated in earlier orders and iterated again today. Nevertheless, the Court
will allow the children to remain in her custody but has serious doubts that she will
be able to maintain them in her home and follow Court Orders and cooperate with
the Department.
The court ordered DHS to make home visits at least every two weeks.
On January 22, 2007, the court signed an emergency order removing the children
from appellant’s custody. The court held a hearing on the emergency removal and made the
following findings:
At a Permanency Planning Hearing conducted last week, Clarise Collins acted
inappropriately and became enraged when she was referred to as “low-functioning.”
Evidence at that hearing revealed she was possibly having psychotic episodes and her
mental health diagnosis from Dr. Deyoub was confirmed by Dr. Shea of Little Rock
Community Mental Health Center. At a minimum, it is clear to this Court that Ms.
Collins is an irrational, angry and impulsive person who is low-functioning, regardless
of whether she bristles at that term or not. Despite these concerns, the court continued
the children in the mother’s home with close monitoring by DHHS ordered. The
mother Clarise Collins has, since the permanency planning hearing, reportedly
threatened to flee with the children and have the judge killed. These alleged threats
were communicated to the mother’s court appointed counsel, Kendall Sample.
Another factor that is of concern to the court is that the children are young, special
needs children. There is probable cause to believe that the children of Clarise Collins
are at risk of harm.
3
The court permitted appellant to have strictly supervised visitation with the children at the
DHS office. It ordered her to take part in anger-management counseling in addition to the
other services already ordered.
The court held another hearing on March 13, 2007, at which appellant and her
attorney were present. The court made the following findings:
The Court finds today that the children are dependent-neglected and that the
allegations in the affidavit are materially true and correct. Specifically, the Court finds
that Ms. Collins made physical threats to Judge Branton. The Court finds that Ms.
Collins made physical threats against her former attorney, Ms. Sample. The Court finds
that Ms. Collins made credible threats to abscond with her children. The Court does
not trust Ms. Collins and would be foolish to leave the children with her. She makes
impulsive, ill-advised decisions. Several of these children are special needs children and
the Court has serious concerns about her ability to provide these children with an
appropriate environment in which to thrive. The Court is not saying that it believes
she would actually harm the children but that notwithstanding, the Court is convinced
she would flee with the children, thereby placing them at risk. Given her
impulsiveness, the Court must also find her threats to be credible. These children were
very reluctantly left in the mother’s custody since this case opened almost a year ago
and in that time, the situation has deteriorated, despite there being services in place to
assist Ms. Collins. The Department has stood by her throughout but the Department’s
caseworker’s testimony today was particularly revealing. The caseworker stated that the
children should go home with Ms. Collins and that Ms. Collins needs a “guardian” to
handle her finances and otherwise assist her. This shows the Department’s true
position. If Ms. Collins needs a guardian, then she is not herself fit and appropriate as
a parent. Dr. Deyoub’s psychological evaluation indicates that Ms. Collins “has no
insight into her own behavior.” This Court strongly agrees. She continues to be her
own worst enemy. She “blew up” yet again at the end of today’s hearing. This is at
least the third time she has done this in Court. Today the Court is making a specific
finding of Willful Contempt by Ms. Collins and had the jail not been so overcrowded,
the Court would likely have let her “cool off” in detention. The fundamental dilemma
here is whether or not Ms. Collins can ever become a better parent, in control of her
emotions and conducting herself as an adult and not a child. Another particularly
telling moment of testimony occurred when the Court learned that Ms. Collins sevenyear old daughter stated that once the family is reunited she’s “gotta take care of Mom
and the other kids.” This seven-year old girl already understands that her mother must
have help, including help raising the children. At seven, that child shows more insight
than Ms. Collins does. It’s sad that a seven-year old views her life in such a way, as a
caregiver to her mother and not as a happy, carefree child. The Court is not at all
optimistic about the future prospects of this case. The Court has been consistent in that
4
opinion since the beginning and sadly, the Court’s pessimism has proven prescient.
Notwithstanding, the Court will set Reunification as the goal at this time.
The court again ordered appellant to receive anger-management counseling. It also
stated that appellant’s visits would be strictly supervised at the DHS office by at least two
people.
Another permanency-planning hearing, which appellant and her attorney attended,
was held on June 19, 2007. The court changed the case’s goal to termination of parental rights
and adoption, making the following findings:
The Court is today changing the goal in this case to Termination of Parental
Rights/Adoption. It is true that Ms. Collins has made some efforts to comply but the
larger issue is whether she has benefitted in any way and whether she ever will. As an
example, she was referred for a Medication Management Appointment and was
prescribed medication. Rather than take the medication, she threw it away. The Court
has to wonder if she’s not simply going through the motions. Her attitude remains
poor and unsurprisingly, she had yet another inappropriate outburst in Court today
and fled the courtroom and had to be brought back in by the bailiff. Even then, she
loudly muttered under her breath as the Court continued to make Its ruling. There
was a telling moment today wherein Ms. Collins, in regard to throwing away the
medicine, stated she could have just lied and said she was taking the medication and
the Department wouldn’t have known because “y’all stupid, anyway.” This indicates
to the Court that her efforts have been something less than sincere. In essence, she has
complied against her will. She does not truly desire changes in her life. Sadly, she
needs significant and lasting changes but she can’t seem to, or perhaps won’t, grasp
this.
The court found that aggravated circumstances were present:
The ordered services for Ms. Collins are meant to fix the problems in the home
and the problems must be fixed. There cannot be half-hearted or insincere
compliance. The Court does not see that Ms. Collins is making any progress and is
finding further that Aggravated Circumstances exist in this case in that it is unlikely
that reunification efforts are going to result in successful reunification. Ms. Collins
continues to show atrociously poor judgment. She has taken up with a married
boyfriend and she says there’s nothing wrong with this and it’s nobody’s business. The
Court is of the position that while Ms. Collins is under the jurisdiction of the Court,
it is very much the Court’s business as to who she associates with. The Court further
learned that someone, allegedly Ms. Collins’ boyfriend’s wife, tried to shoot this
5
boyfriend. Ms. Collins was asked if this concerned her and was asked “What if your
children had been around when someone opened fire?”. Ms. Collins remained wholly
unconcerned and further stated “ain’t nobody gonna mess with me.” Needless to say,
the Court is not going to allow adults to place children in dangerous situations. In the
present case, Ms. Collins can’t or doesn’t want to understand what a dangerous
situation is. Moreover, as the Court has noted before, given Ms. Collins mental
diagnoses and the special needs of her children, there is a serious question about her
ability to provide even basic care. As these children get older, they will become more
difficult to deal with, not easier.
The court directed that appellant have no visitation with the children and set a terminationof-parental-rights hearing for October 9, 2007.
On September 10, 2007, DHS filed a petition for termination of appellant’s parental
rights, citing the court’s previous finding of aggravated circumstances. Appellant and her
attorney appeared at the termination hearing. The CASA report was introduced into
evidence, recommending that appellant’s parental rights be terminated. Letitia Jackson, the
family-service worker, testified that appellant had completed all of the requirements of the
case plan except for anger-management counseling and recommended that her parental rights
be terminated. Ms. Jackson said that she did not think the children would be safe with
appellant; that, after all of the services provided to her over the years, appellant had shown
little improvement; and that DHS had nothing further to offer her. Wendy Childs, an
adoption specialist, testified that, based on the children’s ages and “everything known about
the case,” the children were adoptable. Shirley Manuel, one of the children’s paternal
grandmother, testified about appellant’s history of physically assaulting her and her son,
Kwaise Jones.
The report of appellant’s psychological evaluation, which was admitted into evidence,
gave the following diagnosis:
6
Axis I
Axis II
Axis III
Axis IV
Axis V
Parent-Child Relational Problems (V61.20)
Adjustment Disorder With Disturbance of Conduct (309.3)
Mild Mental Retardation (317)
Personality Disorder NOS (Immature, Inadequate) (301.9)
None
Primary Family Support Problems, DCFS Involvement
Current GAF 40
The major problem with Clarise Collins is her mental retardation, and in her case, the
associated behaviors with her mental retardation. The other factor, which interacts and
may be secondary to her mental retardation, is a personality disorder with immature
and inadequate personality traits. Given that these diagnoses will not change, then her
problems will be ongoing as long as she has children. Her mental retardation will not
change and her cognitive ability can be expected to remain the same, since it has been
lifelong. Seemingly, her personality disorder is so much associated with her mental
retardation that she is going to continue to be an immature and inappropriate
individual, especially regarding social relationships. She was childish and immature
throughout the evaluation, and seems to have no insight regarding her own behavior.
She has a two bedroom apartment with her four developmentally disabled children,
some of them medically fragile. There is no escaping the conclusion that essentially she
is inadequate and either unfit or close to unfit to manage four children. The demands
will not necessarily lessen as the children grow older, but the demands will change. As
the children grow older, she may not have to take care of health fragile infants, but a
host of behavior problems will develop when these children are old enough to act out
and misbehave. The choice will be either to remove the children from her custody if
there is another incident, or ongoing inability to care for the children, or the
alternative will be to supervise this woman indefinitely with a protective services case.
She requires individual counseling to help her cope because parenting classes alone will
not be sufficient. Parenting assistance has to be ongoing and the only way to do that
will be individual counseling, intensive family services, and frequent home visits. All
of these children have to be in childcare all year long, because it means someone else
will take care of them at least during the daytime on the weekdays. She requires a firm
approach because if she does not cooperate, there will be no choice but to remove the
children, since there will be no recourse to ensure the health and safety of the children.
Either she cooperates or there is no way to know that the children are being taken
care of. Her problems are intractable because of her mental retardation and immature
personality. I doubt she will ever be finished with DHHS and, I am sorry to predict
that at some point, the children will be brought into foster care.
The court entered an order on November 13, 2007, terminating appellant’s parental
rights to the children. It found them to be adoptable and stated:
7
Today, the Court finds that the mother, Clarise Collins, has made no progress
toward rehabilitating herself or her situation such that the Court could not even
consider supervised visitation, much less returning the children to her custody. Despite
the clear orders of this Court for the mother to undergo counseling and anger
management, the mother refused these services. The Court does not know today if the
mother is taking prescribed medications, and because the Court does not find the
mother to be a credible witness, it is not able to simply take her word at face value.
The mother continued to demonstrate her low-functioning, instability and lack of
insight in court today in that she had yet another inappropriate outburst of anger and
left the courtroom. The hearing continued without her presence, but she could be
heard outside the courtroom yelling for a significant period of time. The Court finds
that the mother has made no progress whatsoever and that in terms of progress the
mother is right back where she started, that she remains a danger to her children, and
based on her actions, the only thing her children would learn from her is to be out of
control, inappropriate and threatening to others. The mother informed the Court,
during her inappropriate outburst and leaving the courtroom that she was never
coming back to this Court. While the children have not been out of her custody for
a full year, this case has been ongoing for well over a year, and the Court stands by its
earlier finding of aggravated circumstances in this case, because it is perfectly clear that
no reunification services will be of use to, or even accepted by, the mother, and the
children will not be able to be reunited with the mother in the foreseeable future, if
ever. The Court terminates Clarise Collins’ parental rights at this time.
Appellant pursued this appeal.
Appellant contends that, although she did not assert any rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act to the circuit court, this court should consider it and determine whether
she was provided reasonable accommodation to complete reunification services. We disagree.
Because appellant failed to raise this argument to the trial court, she is barred from raising that
issue for the first time on appeal. Ark. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs. v. Jones, 97 Ark. App.
267, 248 S.W.3d 507 (2007).
Appellant argues that the evidence does not support the trial court’s findings that the
children are adoptable or that grounds existed for termination. She argues that, although she
was unquestionably limited in her ability to understand what she needed to do, would always
need help, and had a “problematic” attitude toward the court, there was no evidence that she
8
had harmed the children; that she would not benefit from continued counseling and services;
or that she could not, with assistance, be an appropriate caregiver for her children. She argues
that she was not given sufficient time and appropriate assistance to meet the requirements of
the case plan and asks us to reverse the decision terminating her parental rights and to remand
for further proceedings.
There is no requirement that DHS prove that the children will be adopted; instead, the
statute states that, after consideration of each of the statutory factors, including their likelihood
of being adopted, the evidence must be clear and convincing that the termination is in the
best interest of the children. See McFarland v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 91 Ark. App. 323,
210 S.W.3d 143 (2005). The adoption specialist testified that the children were adoptable.
Additionally, appellant threatened to flee with the children; she made threats against her
former attorney and the trial judge outside the courtroom; she intentionally threw away her
medication; she refused to participate in anger-management counseling; and she made
frequent expressions of hostility and anger in the courtroom. Given these facts and the
children’s special needs, we cannot say that the trial court erred in finding that termination
was in the children’s best interests.
We also hold that there was sufficient evidence to support termination on the basis of
aggravated circumstances. Termination of parental rights is an extreme remedy in derogation
of the natural rights of the parents. Nevertheless, parental rights will not be enforced to the
detriment or destruction of the health and well-being of the child. Wright v. Ark. Dep’t of
Human Servs., 83 Ark. App. 1, 115 S.W.3d 332 (2003). Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27341(b)(3) (Repl. 2008), the facts warranting termination of parental rights must be proven by
9
clear and convincing evidence. In reviewing the trial court’s evaluation of the evidence, we
will not reverse unless the trial court clearly erred in finding that the relevant facts were
established by clear and convincing evidence. Wright v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., supra.
Clear and convincing evidence is the degree of proof that will produce in the fact-finder a
firm conviction regarding the allegation sought to be established. Id. Furthermore, we will
defer to the trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses. Id.
Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-341(b) provides in relevant part:
(3) An order forever terminating parental rights shall be based upon a finding by clear
and convincing evidence:
(A) That it is in the best interest of the juvenile, including consideration of the
following factors:
(i) The likelihood that the juvenile will be adopted if the termination petition is
granted; and
(ii) The potential harm, specifically addressing the effect on the health and safety of the
child, caused by returning the child to the custody of the parent, parents, or putative
parent or parents; and
(B) Of one (1) or more of the following grounds:
....
(vii)(a) That other factors or issues arose subsequent to the filing of the original petition
for dependency-neglect that demonstrate that return of the juvenile to the custody of
the parent is contrary to the juvenile’s health, safety, or welfare and that, despite the
offer of appropriate family services, the parent has manifested the incapacity or
indifference to remedy the subsequent issues or factors or rehabilitate the parent’s
circumstances that prevent return of the juvenile to the custody of the parent.
....
(ix)(a) The parent is found by a court of competent jurisdiction, including the juvenile
division of circuit court, to:
....
10
(3)(A) Have subjected any juvenile to aggravated circumstances.
(B) “Aggravated circumstances” means:
(i) A juvenile has been abandoned, chronically abused, subjected to extreme or
repeated cruelty, sexually abused, or a determination has been made by a judge that
there is little likelihood that services to the family will result in successful
reunification. . . .
It is true that appellant completed many of the requirements asked of her. However,
a parent’s rights may be terminated even though she is in partial compliance with the case plan.
Chase v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 86 Ark. App. 237, 184 S.W.3d 453 (2004). In fact, even
full completion of a case plan is not determinative of defeating a petition to terminate parental
rights. Wright v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., supra. What matters is whether completion of the
case plan has achieved the intended result of making the parent capable of caring for the child.
Id. A stable home is one of a child’s most basic needs. Latham v. Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human
Servs., 99 Ark. App. 25, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2007).
The evidence that supported the court’s best-interest finding also supported its finding
that there was little likelihood that services would result in successful reunification. Dr.
Deyoub’s report reinforced that conclusion. He diagnosed her as having no insight into her
behavior and unlikely to improve even if given services; he believed that she would have to
be supervised indefinitely if she had custody of her children. Additionally, appellant admits that
she did not complete anger-management counseling. Because her refusal or inability to control
her anger was one of her most severe problems, this omission is significant. Thus, even with
more time and reunification services, there is no reason to believe that appellant could ever
11
provide a stable home for the children, much less within a reasonable time from their
perspectives.
Affirmed.
GRIFFEN and HEFFLEY, JJ., agree.
12
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.
