Jones v. Ark. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No.
CA08-1471
SHARON JONES,
Opinion Delivered 29
APRIL 2009
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. JJN2006-140]
V.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES and
MINOR CHILD,
APPELLEES
THE HONORABLE WILEY A.
BRANTON JR., JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
D. P. MARSHALL JR. , Judge
The circuit court terminated Sharon Jones’s parental rights to her three-year-old
daughter, CC2. On appeal, Jones’s lawyer has moved to withdraw and has filed a nomerit brief pursuant to Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131,
194 S.W.3d 739 (2004) and our Rule 4-3(j)(1). The brief states that there were no
adverse rulings at the hearing other than the ultimate decision and explains why no
meritorious ground for reversal exists. Jones filed no pro se points. We agree that
Jones’s appeal lacks merit.
In terminating Jones’s parental rights, the circuit court found CC2 is young and
likely to be adopted, and that she would face potential harm by continued contact
with Jones. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(A) (Repl. 2008). The court also found
two statutory grounds for termination. As one ground, the court found these
circumstances: That CC2 has been adjudicated dependent-neglected; she has been out
of Jones’s custody for twelve months; and despite the Department’s efforts to
rehabilitate Jones and correct the conditions that caused removal, Jones had failed to
remedy those conditions. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a).
The evidence presented at the hearing supports this ground for termination.
DHS took emergency custody of CC2 and her four brothers and sisters in January
2006 due to neglect. DHS was specifically concerned about CC2’s health. She was
diagnosed with failure to thrive shortly thereafter. About three months after DHS
removed the children, the court adjudicated all of them dependent-neglected, noting
Jones’s abuse of sleeping pills and her failure to supervise the children. The court also
ordered Jones to undergo training about how to feed CC2 and care for her special
needs. Jones made some progress, and in December 2006 the circuit court returned
the children to her custody for a thirty day trial placement.
About four months later, DHS again took emergency custody of CC2, who had
been admitted to Arkansas Children’s Hospital for failure to thrive. Though DHS
offered services to Jones, she continued to struggle with depression and drugs. At the
termination hearing in August 2008, Jones admitted that she remained incapable of
providing a safe and stable home for CC2 but suggested that the child be placed with
her father. The circuit judge found that CC2 “is an extremely high needs child who
-2-
requires close supervision twenty-four hours a day, every day” and that her care-giver
must be “consistent, patient, persistent, and stable.” The court noted that Jones had
tested positive for opiates about two months earlier, that she was at that time still
incapable of meeting CC2’s specific needs, and that many more milestones lie ahead.
The court likewise found that CC2’s father did not have the ability to meet her
specific needs. Given CC2’s medical condition and Jones’s concession that she could
not provide a stable home for her daughter, we see no clear error in the circuit court’s
decision to terminate Jones’s parental rights. Yarborough v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs.,
96 Ark. App. 247, 253, 240 S.W.3d 626, 630 (2006).
Affirmed; motion granted.
VAUGHT, C.J., and BAKER, J., agree.
-3-
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.
