Prows v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No.
CA08-1131
CLAUDIA PROWS,
Opinion Delivered 18
MARCH 2009
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE SEARCY
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. JV2005-30]
V.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES and MINOR
CHILD,
APPELLEES
THE HONORABLE RHONDA K.
WOOD, JUDGE
AFFIRMED
D. P. MARSHALL JR. , Judge
This termination-of-parental-rights case is before us a second time. The circuit
court initially terminated Claudia Prows’s rights to her son, Z.C., in 2007. The court
based its decision on Prows’s long history of mental disease and inability to stabilize her
condition. Prows appealed. We held that the circuit court made two legal errors: (1)
it ruled from the bench that if Z.C. was not able to go home with Prows the day of
the termination hearing, then the court had to terminate her parental rights; and (2)
it stated in the termination order that it could not consider the mother’s recent
stability. Prows v. Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 102 Ark. App. 205, 208–10,
__ S.W.3d __, __ (2008). We therefore reversed and remanded for the circuit court
to consider Prows’s recent mental stability in deciding the termination issue. Ibid.
On remand, the circuit court entered a revised order terminating Prows’s
parental rights to Z.C. Prows appeals again, and argues only that the circuit court
failed to follow our mandate because it did not consider her recent improvement. We
disagree.
In its revised order, the circuit court specifically acknowledged our instructions
on remand.
The court stated that it considered Prows’s recent mental-health
improvements in the period before the termination hearing. But the court “did not
find any compelling evidence that this was anything other than another cyclic
improvement.” The court further found that “even with this episode of improvement
. . . that [Prows] still has not progressed to provide stability in all other aspects of her
life necessary to keep [Z.C.] out of danger.” Finally, the court found Dr. Spencer’s
hope for unsupervised visits between Prows and Z.C. within three to six months
“disingenuous.”
Prows argues that the circuit court merely gave lip service to the record by
relying on Dr. Spencer’s adverse testimony for support but dismissing his positive
testimony. This is a matter of credibility on which we must defer to the circuit judge.
She saw and heard the witnesses, while we did not. Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human
Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 215, 40 S.W.3d 286, 292–93 (2001).
We are convinced that the circuit court followed our mandate in letter and
spirit. And Prows does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the
termination. We therefore affirm.
GRUBER and GLOVER, 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.
