Claudia Mendoza v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Not Designated for Publication
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
CA08-643
No.
CLAUDIA MENDOZA
Opinion Delivered
December 10, 2008
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE BENTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. J2006-1073-D/N]
V.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES
APPELLEES
HONORABLE JAY T. FINCH, JUDGE
SUBSTITUTED OPINION;
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED
KAREN R. BAKER, Judge
On March 11, 2008, the Benton County Circuit Court entered an order terminating
Claudia Mendoza’s parental rights to her two children, J.V.M, born November 8, 2003; and
J.M.M., born January 23, 2006. 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). Counsel’s brief discussed the sufficiency of
the evidence to support the termination order and asserted that there were no adverse rulings
made at trial.
Mendoza filed a pro se response to counsel’s brief, questioning whether the circuit court
could terminate her parental rights because she is a citizen of Mexico. She also questions
whether the termination was in her children’s best interests. Neither point has merit. In Johnson
v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950), the Court stated that it was the alien’s presence within a
state’s territorial jurisdiction that gave the state court the power to act over the alien. Here,
Mendoza was unquestionably within the territorial confines of Benton County and subject to
the jurisdiction of the Benton County Circuit Court.
Mendoza next argues that the termination is not in the children’s best interests. She
asserts that she has improved herself and learned skills that would enable her to be a better
parent. Evidence that a parent begins to make improvement as termination becomes more
imminent will not outweigh other evidence demonstrating a failure to comply and to remedy
the situation that caused the children to be removed in the first place. See Lewis v. Arkansas
Dep’t of Human Servs., 364 Ark. 243, 217 S.W.3d 788 (2005); Camarillo-Cox v. Arkansas Dep’t
of Human Servs., 360 Ark. 340, 201 S.W.3d 391 (2005). Here, the other factors include the
failure to attend counseling, parenting classes, or NA/AA meetings or to enter drug
treatment until immediately before her incarceration.
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
we hold that the appeal is wholly without merit. We hold that the circuit court’s decision to
terminate Mendoza’s parental rights was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw and affirm the order terminating Mendoza’s parental rights.
Affirmed.
B IRD and M ARSHALL, JJ., agree.
-2-
CA08-643
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.
