Nixon v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
CA 08-977
No.
MARY NIXON
Opinion Delivered
January 28, 2009
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. JN-2006-1064]
V.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES and A.W., MINOR
CHILD
APPELLEES
HONORABLE RITA GRUBER,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED
M. MICHAEL KINARD, Judge
Appellant Mary Nixon appeals from the termination of her parental rights in A.W.,
born August 11, 2005. We affirm.
In May 2006, the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) removed A.W.
from appellant’s custody based on reports that appellant’s erratic behavior was preventing
A.W. from receiving much-needed medical care and that there was inadequate supervision
in the home. A.W. was adjudicated dependent-neglected based on medical neglect and
inadequate supervision. While in DHS custody, A.W. underwent one liver transplant, and
she was preparing for a second liver transplant when parental rights were terminated. At the
time of the termination hearing on April 14, 2008, appellant had recently been homeless, had
tested positive for illegal substances, and had been employed for only about six months since
the case was opened. Appellant admitted that she was unable to care for A.W. at that time.
The trial court terminated appellant’s parental rights, finding, among other things, that
appellant had not made any attempt to learn how to meet the needs of her child, had chosen
not to utilize the services and support given to assist her with reunification, and had not
shown that she had sufficiently rehabilitated herself such that she could regain custody of
A.W. in the foreseeable future.
The only substantial issue in this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the
termination of appellant’s parental rights. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
as to termination being in A.W.’s best interest and as to the existence of at least one ground
for termination. Having determined that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that
termination of appellant’s parental rights was in A.W.’s best interest and that at least one
statutory ground for termination was proven, we affirm by memorandum opinion. The
thorough and detailed opinion of the trial court appropriately explains the basis for this
decision. See In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).
Affirmed.
G LOVER and M ARSHALL, 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.
