Veronica Simone-Lewis and Ronald Wayne Milligan, Sr. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and R.M., Minor Child

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Not designated for publication. ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CA08-670 Opinion Delivered D ECEMBER VERONICA SIMONE-LEWIS and RONALD WAYNE MILLIGAN, SR. APPELLANTS V. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES and R.M., MINOR CHILD APPELLEES 17, 2008 APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, [NO. JN2006-1862] HONORABLE RITA W. GRUBER, JUDGE AFFIRMED ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge Appellants Veronica Simone-Lewis and Ronald Milligan appeal from the termination of their parental rights in R.M. We affirm. When Ms. Simone-Lewis gave birth to R.M. on September 3, 2006, both mother and child had methamphetamine, amphetamine, and benzodiazepine in their systems. Ms. SimoneLewis also had THC in her system and admitted using drugs during her pregnancy. She and R.M. are positive for hepatitis C. R.M. is her fifth child; she has relinquished either parental rights to or custody of the other four children. DHS took custody of R.M. when he was less than two weeks old. On November 8, 2006, Ms. Simone-Lewis left court-ordered residential drug treatment after only a few days and absconded with R.M., who was not recovered by DHS until January 31, 2007. Ms. Simone-Lewis was incarcerated on a forgery charge from February 6, 2007, through July 31, 2007. Mr. Milligan also has a drug problem of long standing and tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine three days after R.M.’s birth. Although DHS provided extensive reunification services, appellants failed to address their drug problems until very late in the proceeding. At the time of the termination hearing on January 9, 2008, the trial court ordered home evaluations of Ms. Simone-Lewis’s sister and Mr. Milligan’s cousin. After conducting a home study, DHS did not recommend that the child be placed with Mr. Milligan’s cousin. DHS attempted to perform a home study on Ms. Simone-Lewis’s sister, but she was unwilling to take the child unless appellants’ parental rights were terminated. At the continued termination hearing on February 20, 2008, Dr. George DeRoeck, who performed psychological evaluations on appellants, testified that neither parent was capable of independently taking care of a child and that both needed to complete rehabilitation. Appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as to R.M.’s best interest and grounds for termination and assert that the trial court should have placed him with a relative instead of terminating their parental rights. Having determined that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that termination was in R.M.’s best interest; that at least one statutory ground for termination was proven; and that the court did not err in refusing to place the child with a relative, we affirm by memorandum opinion. The trial court’s thoroughly-detailed opinion more than adequately explains the decision. See In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985). Affirmed. P ITTMAN, C.J. and G LOVER, J., agree. -2- CA08-670

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.