Maria McCullough v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR
PUBLICATION
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No.
CA 08-24
Opinion Delivered
MARIA MCCULLOUGH
APPELLANT
V.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES
APPELLEE
MAY 14, 2008
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. JN 2006-1388]
HONORABLE JOYCE WILLIAMS
WARREN, JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
JOHN B. ROBBINS, Judge
On October 22, 2007, the Pulaski County Circuit Court entered an order terminating
Maria McCullough’s parental rights to her four children, M.M., born November 24, 1999;
J.M.-1, born March 22, 2002; J.M.-2, born May 9, 2003; and Q.M., born May 7, 2005. 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). McCullough filed a pro se response to counsel’s brief, stating that she did not
mistreat her children and had complied with the case plan, but otherwise did not specifically
raise any points for reversal. Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) did not file a
brief.
Counsel’s brief discussed eight adverse rulings made at the termination hearing as well
as 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 termination cases and
that the appeal is wholly without merit. We hold that the circuit court’s decision to terminate
appellant’s parental rights was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion
to withdraw and affirm the order terminating appellant’s parental rights.
Affirmed.
GLADWIN and BAKER, JJ., agree.
-2-
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.
