Dean v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
CA08-1381
No.
Opinion Delivered
BRITTNEY SCHOENING DEAN AND
JAMES DEAN
APPELLANTS
March 18, 2009
APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. JV07-216]
V.
HONORABLE MARK HEWETT,
JUDGE
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
M. MICHAEL KINARD, Judge
On September 11, 2008, the Sebastian County Circuit Court terminated appellants’
parental rights in J.D. (born February 21, 2005), and K.D. (born February 8, 2007).
Appellants’ counsel has filed a no-merit brief and motion to withdraw, pursuant to LinkerFlores v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004), and
Arkansas Supreme Court Rules 4-3(j) and 6-9(i) (as amended Sept. 25, 2008). Counsel’s brief
contains all rulings from the termination hearing that are adverse to appellants and states that
none of those rulings present an issue of arguable merit for appeal. Our clerk’s office mailed
a copy of counsel’s brief and motion to appellants at their last known address, informing them
of their right to submit points for reversal. The packet was returned unclaimed, and appellants
have therefore filed no pro se points.
Upon thorough examination of the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude that an
appeal in this case would be wholly frivolous. See Linker-Flores v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs.,
364 Ark. 224, 217 S.W.3d 107 (2005). We therefore affirm the termination order and grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Appellants tested positive for drugs throughout the case, including periods when they
were in drug rehabilitation and in the few days before the termination hearing. Appellants also
failed to obtain stable housing and failed to complete drug rehabilitation, counseling, and
parenting classes. Mr. Dean had some income, but he did not pay the court-ordered child
support of thirty-six dollars per week, choosing instead to spend seventy dollars per week on
cigarettes. Both appellants were convicted of public intoxication after DHS removed the
children from the home in March 2007, and Mr. Dean was convicted of the same offense
again in January 2008. DHS provided appellants with referrals for psychological assessments,
drug assessments, counseling, drug treatment, medication management, parenting classes, and
housing. A DHS witness testified that she recommended termination of parental rights and
adoption as a permanency plan for the children, who were then ages three and one.
The above evidence effectively demonstrates the futility of an appeal from the
termination decision. Appellants have been non-compliant throughout the case and have
continued to use drugs without making any serious attempts to remedy their circumstances.
However, we make a single observation regarding DHS’s presentation of its case below. Our
termination statute requires the circuit court to consider the likelihood of a child’s adoption
in assessing whether termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Ark. Code
-2-
Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(A) (Repl. 2008). The circuit court in this case did so and therefore
complied with the statute. Yet, DHS offered no evidence of the children’s likelihood of
adoption. Consequently, the court was placed in the posture of considering this factor without
the benefit of testimony from a knowledgeable witness. Because the proof in this case so
clearly supports a finding that termination is in the children’s best interest, an appeal on this
point would be unsupportable. But we caution DHS that it has the burden of proof at trial
and that it should not be cavalier in producing evidence that enables the circuit court to make
its statutorily-mandated findings.
The remaining decisions adverse to appellants involve an evidentiary ruling and an
overruled objection during DHS’s cross-examination of Mr. Dean. The evidentiary rulings
involve the court’s admission of appellants’ public-intoxication convictions. Appellants
objected that Ark. R. Evid. 609 prohibits use of misdemeanor convictions for impeachment
purposes. However, DHS did not use the convictions for impeachment purposes but to prove
its case for parental unfitness. Additionally, Mr. Dean testified that he and Mrs. Dean were
“high on methamphetamine” when DHS removed the children from their custody and that
he and Mrs. Dean were later convicted of public intoxication. Thus, no prejudice can be
shown from admission of the conviction documents. See Aka v. Jefferson Hosp. Ass’n, 344 Ark.
627, 42 S.W.3d 508 (2001).
Appellants also objected when a DHS caseworker suggested a question for the DHS
attorney to ask Mr. Dean on cross-examination. This presents no possible meritorious grounds
-3-
for reversal. The caseworker was properly in the courtroom and there is no indication that
she created a disruption or suggested an unfairly prejudicial question.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
R OBBINS and B AKER, JJ., agree.
-4-
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.