Harbin v. Ark. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 487 (unpublished)
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No.
CA09-81
HOPE HARBIN,
Opinion Delivered 17
June 2009
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. JV 2007-299A, B, C, D & E]
V.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES and
MINOR CHILDREN,
APPELLEES
HONORABLE VICKI SHAW COOK,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
D.P. MARSHALL JR., Judge
The circuit court terminated Hope Harbin’s parental rights to her five children
between the ages of four and ten, R.H., K.H., J.H., M.H., and D.W. Harbin’s attorney
on appeal has moved to withdraw and filed a no-merit brief pursuant to Linker-Flores
v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004) and
Supreme Court Rule 6-9(i). That brief explains why no meritorious ground for
reversal exists and concludes that there were no adverse rulings at the hearing apart
from the ultimate termination decision. Harbin filed no pro se points. We agree that
her appeal lacks merit.
In terminating Harbin’s parental rights, the circuit court found that all the
children were likely to be adopted, and that they would face potential harm through
continued contact with Harbin. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(A) (Repl. 2008).
In addition, the court found several statutory grounds for termination. As one ground,
the court found that after the filing of the original emergency petition other problems
arose, which demonstrated that returning the children to Harbin would threaten their
health, safety and welfare, and that—despite the offer of appropriate family
services—Harbin was unable or indifferent to remedy those problems or rehabilitate
the circumstances preventing return of the children to her custody. Ark. Code Ann.
§ 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a).
The evidence presented at trial supports this ground for termination. The
circuit court had initially placed the children in DHS’s custody in May 2007, finding
them in “immediate danger of severe maltreatment.” The children were then living
with Harbin’s mother. Almost a month later, the court adjudicated the children
dependent-neglected, setting a goal of reunification and ordering Harbin to undergo
drug-testing,
contact
DHS
weekly,
and
complete
parenting
classes.
DHS—unsuccessfully—tried to assist Harbin in adopting a more stable lifestyle.
Although Harbin made intermittent progress by attending some parenting classes and
abstaining from drugs, she relapsed to the point of requiring hospitalization for her
drug problem. She also failed to attend psychological counseling and maintain
-2-
contact with DHS as ordered by the court.
The circuit court found that because of Harbin’s “substance abuse problems
and her emotional problems and her inability to meet these children’s needs . . . it
would be potentially harmful for these children’s health and safety if they were
returned to the mother’s care and custody.” The threat of harm was especially great
for R.H. and K.H. who required significant attention and care because of behavioral
and psychological problems. The court also noted that some of the children reacted
negatively to contact with Harbin and that it would be “contrary to these children’s
best interest for [Harbin] to continue sporadically to come in and out of their lives.”
Given Harbin’s inability to parent her five young children and the children’s urgent
need for stability and care, we conclude that her appeal of the circuit court’s decision
to terminate Harbin’s parental rights has no merit. Lewis v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human
Servs., 364 Ark. 243, 252, 217 S.W.3d 788, 794 (2005).
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
PITTMAN and HENRY, JJ., agree.
-3-
-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.
