Collier v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CA09-232
RICHARD COLLIER
APPELLANT
V.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES
APPELLEE
Opinion Delivered SEPTEMBER
9, 2009
APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. JV 2007-780]
HONORABLE VICKI SHAW COOK,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED
LARRY D. VAUGHT, Chief Judge
In this dependency-neglect proceeding, appellant Richard Collier appeals from an
order awarding permanent custody of his son X.C. to Cindy Collier. The order also restricted
the visitation between Richard Collier and X.C., but provided that visitation may expand if
recommended by X.C.’s therapist. Finally, the order directed that the case be closed. We
affirm.
Collier apparently had custody of X.C. following a divorce from Cindy Collier. The
present case began October 22, 2007, when DHS received a call that Collier was kicking
X.C. There were also allegations that the child had suffered cuts, bruises, and welts. X.C. told
the worker that he had been “whooped by daddy with a red ruler.” During an interview with
the worker, Collier admitted that he spanked X.C. with a ruler, but denied he had kicked or
hit X.C. DHS exercised a seventy-two-hour hold on X.C. and filed its petition for
emergency custody on October 23, 2007. The circuit court granted DHS emergency custody
by order entered on October 26, 2007. The court later found probable cause for entry of the
emergency order. Collier’s visitation was to be supervised by DHS.
The adjudication hearing was held on December 19, 2007, and the court found that
X.C. was dependent/neglected as alleged. X.C. remained in DHS’s custody, with the goal
to be reunification. Both parents were ordered to follow the court’s orders and the DHS case
plan, obtain and maintain stable employment and housing, remain clean and sober, submit
to random drug tests, complete parenting classes, submit to a psychological evaluation and
follow the recommendations, and not to use corporal punishment on X.C. In addition,
Collier was ordered to attend anger management classes.
On December 31, 2007, Collier filed a “Petition for Return of Custody,” asserting
that he had been X.C.’s primary care giver, that he had the facilities and resources to care for
the child, and that it was in X.C.’s best interest to be returned to Collier’s custody upon
completion of the case plan.
On April 2, 2008, the circuit court held a review hearing and found that the mother
had complied with the case plan, while Collier was found to have partially complied with the
case plan. X.C. was placed with the mother on a sixty-day trial visit, while Collier’s visitation
continued to be restricted. However, the visitation could expand if both Collier’s therapist
and X.C.’s therapist recommended it. Collier was ordered to have no contact with X.C.’s
mother. A separate order was also entered prohibiting Collier from having any contact with
X.C.’s school, upon pain of immediate arrest.
-2-
An order was entered on June 4, 2008, finding that X.C. had a successful trial
placement with his mother and awarding her temporary custody.
A second review hearing was held on July 23, 2008, when the court found that
permanent custody of X.C. should be awarded to his mother. The court found that the
mother had complied with the case plan, while Collier was found to have partially complied.
Collier was ordered to attend counseling with X.C. when X.C.’s therapist recommended it.
His visitation was to be restricted and supervised for two hours each week.
The permanency-planning hearing from which this appeal arises was held December
16, 2008. Cheryl Wardwell, X.C.’s mental-health therapist, testified that X.C. was very slow
progressing in counseling due to his becoming physically agitated and being unable to
concentrate or focus. Wardwell also stated that she did not have any concerns about X.C.
being left in the custody of his mother. She recommended, however, that Collier’s visitation
with X.C. remain supervised and fairly structured, noting that X.C. had told her about times
when Collier was aggressive and about the incident with the ruler. On cross-examination,
Wardwell agreed that, if Collier were released by his counselor, he could attend counseling
with herself and X.C. She volunteered to supervise visitation between X.C. and Collier.
Karen Kindig, who worked for the school X.C. formerly attended, testified that she
did not have any concerns about Cindy Collier and her treatment of X.C. According to
Kindig, X.C. voiced a couple of concerns about Collier but Kindig had never witnessed any
interaction between the two. One of the statements indicated that Collier was mean to X.C.
Birkes Williams, Collier’s therapist, testified that he and Collier were working on a
-3-
host of issues, including some related to anger, how to parent, and how to build relationships.
According to Williams, Collier was not paranoid but did not really trust anyone. Williams was
trying to help Collier understand that his negative thinking about others around X.C. could
be very detrimental to X.C. and that if he had a healthy relationship with X.C., it could lead
to a more positive outcome. Although Collier had not shown any explosive or anger
episodes, Williams believed that he could benefit from more counseling on anger issues and
how to appropriately resolve conflicts. According to Williams, Collier’s distrust stemmed from
the fact that he believes that the system is against him and wants his ex-wife to have custody
of X.C. Williams said that he tried to get Collier to look at the allegations made and
substantiated to see how the court was viewing the situation. On cross-examination, Williams
said that he could counsel with both Collier and X.C. if the court believed it to be
therapeutic. Williams was reluctant to do so if it would disrupt X.C.’s relationship with
another counselor.
Jamie Moran, the DHS case worker assigned to the case, testified that the department
was recommending that Collier’s visitation be suspended until recommended by X.C.’s
therapist. The previous visitation was not positive. According to Moran, X.C. “has
blossomed” in his mother’s care and was doing well in school. Moran said that Collier had
complied with parts of the case plan and had not complied with other parts. Among the areas
where Collier had not complied were completing parenting and anger-management classes.
Richard Collier testified that he has made progress in counseling and had completed
anger management. He said that he would be willing to work with Cheryl Wardwell on
-4-
counseling. He also said that he was willing to work with Cindy Collier and do what is best
for X.C.
The circuit court ruled from the bench and placed X.C. in the permanent custody of
his mother. The court noted that the burden was on Collier to work with Cheryl Wardwell
and follow her recommendations to obtain more visitation. The court also noted that Collier
or another party would have to file a FINS petition in order for the court to retain
jurisdiction. This appeal followed.
Because juvenile proceedings are equitable in nature, the standard of review on appeal
is de novo. Judkins v. Duvall, 97 Ark. App. 260, 248 S.W.3d 492 (2007). However, we do
not reverse the circuit court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. We give
due deference to the superior position of the circuit court to view and judge the credibility
of the witnesses. Id. This deference to the circuit court is even greater in cases involving child
custody, as a heavier burden is placed on the circuit judge to utilize to the fullest extent his
or her powers of perception in evaluating the witnesses, their testimony, and the best interests
of the children. Id.
We first note that Collier’s 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(k)(1). Counsel is proceeding under the false
assumption that an order closing a dependency/neglect case with no visitation is tantamount
to termination of that parent’s parental rights. However, counsel cites no authority for that
proposition. Moreover, an award of permanent custody is one of the outcomes of a
-5-
permanency-planning hearing authorized by Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-338(c).
The circuit court clearly provided that Collier could obtain visitation if it was recommended
by X.C.’s therapist. Counsel also assumes that the burden of proof is by clear and convincing
evidence. That heightened burden only applies if Collier’s parental rights were being
terminated. See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-325(h)(2)(B), (C).
In the present case, the circuit court did not clearly err in placing X.C. in the custody
of his mother. Less than fourteen months prior to the final hearing, Collier kicked X.C. and
hit him with a ruler, leaving cuts and bruises. The evidence shows that X.C. has thrived while
in his mother’s care. The consensus of the recommendations was that Collier continue in
therapy to learn how to deal with certain issues, including anger. There was testimony that
Collier had not completed the anger-management classes. Those same recommendations also
stated that it should be X.C.’s therapist who recommends whether Collier’s visitation
expands.
Affirmed.
PITTMAN and GLADWIN, JJ., agree.
-6-
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.