Turner v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 813 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CA 09-628 REBECCA TURNER Opinion Delivered December 2, 2009 APPELLANT V. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE OUACHITA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. JV-07-103] HONORABLE LARRY W. CHANDLER, JUDGE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO BE RELIEVED GRANTED COURTNEY HUDSON HENRY, Judge By an order dated March 20, 2009, the Ouachita County Circuit Court terminated the parental rights of appellant Rebecca Turner to her son, W.P., and to her daughter, K.P. On appeal, appellant’s attorney has filed a motion to be relieved as counsel pursuant to LinkerFlores v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(i), asserting that there are no issues of arguable merit to support an appeal. Counsel’s motion is accompanied by a brief listing all adverse rulings made at the termination hearing and explaining why there is no meritorious ground for reversal. The clerk of this court sent a copy of counsel’s motion and brief to appellant, informing her that she had the right to file pro se points for reversal. The post office attempted to deliver the packet on three occasions, but those efforts proved unsuccessful. Consequently, appellant has not filed any pro se points. Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 813 Our review of the record reveals that the children were removed from appellant’s custody because of physical violence perpetrated by appellant’s husband, who is not the father of the children. The husband is also a sex offender, whom appellant has not divorced. During the course of the proceedings, appellant failed to comply with the requirements of the case plan. Based on appellant’s lack of compliance and her admitted lack of motivation to achieve the return of the children, the trial court entered an order finding aggravated circumstances and relieving the department of the responsibility for providing reunification services. See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(47)(C)(i) (Supp. 2009). Fifteen months following the removal of the children, the trial court terminated appellant’s parental rights, finding the existence of several grounds and concluding that termination was in the children’s best interest. See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3) (Supp. 2009). From our review, we find that counsel has complied with the rule regarding no-merit appeals, and we conclude that the appeal is wholly without merit. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to be relieved and affirm the termination order. Affirmed; motion granted. GRUBER and MARSHALL, JJ., agree. -2- CA 09-628

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.