Gilmore v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 614
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CA10-316
LATRICE GILMORE
Opinion Delivered
APPELLANT
V.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES
APPELLEE
September 22, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. JJN 2008-1445]
HONORABLE WILEY A. BRANTON,
JR., JUDGE
AFFIRMED
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Judge
Appellant, Latrice Gilmore, is the mother of R.S., born on August 30, 1997. The
circuit court terminated her parental rights to her son on December 22, 2009, after the child
had been out of the home since July 22, 2008. The trial court found that Gilmore had not
remedied the conditions that caused removal. We affirm.
Gilmore, who had legal custody, left R.S. with his father, Robert Stevenson, her
erstwhile husband, when she moved to Dallas to attend beauty school. DHS exercised an
emergency hold on the child on July 22, 2008, after an allegation of physical abuse was made
against the father. The affidavit supporting the petition for emergency custody stated that the
father had choked and hit R.S., had thrown him head-first into a couch, and had struck him
with a belt. According to the affidavit, when the family-service worker contacted Gilmore
about her son having been taken into emergency custody, Gilmore stated that the child could
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 614
either go to foster care or to the father. She further remarked that
[s]he gave permission for the dad to beat his ass because he deserved it. If she came to
do it, it would be worse. She is twenty-nine years old and she is a business woman.
Her son can stay in foster care until she comes to get him next year.
Refusing to give her address, she hung up on the family-service worker, but then called
several more times, each time uttering profanities.
On September 16, 2008, the trial court held an adjudication hearing, found the child
dependent-neglected, and granted supervised visitation to Gilmore. The court found that
Robert had abused R.S. and observed as follows:
Latrice Gilmore, mother, is an unfit parent. Ms. Gilmore is not a credible
witness. She is not emotionally or mentally stable. The determination of her exact
pathology, the court will leave to the professionals, but there is something seriously
wrong with Ms. Gilmore. In addition, Ms. Gilmore has had a criminal history since
childhood. She has personal conflicts with many people, which often includes cursing
people and yelling at people. When the court was announcing its ruling, Ms. Gilmore
was on the verge of being held in contempt of court due to her continuing outward
displays of emotion and muttering. Ms. Gilmore has also physically abused R.S. The
court currently considers Mr. S. to be a better prospect for reunification.
Establishing a goal of reunification of the child with the mother, the court ordered Gilmore
to submit to a psychological evaluation, random drug screens, and recommended family
therapy. The court also noted that if Gilmore continued to harass DHS staff, the agency could
discontinue contact.
The court held the first permanency-planning hearing on January 27, 2009. In the
order, the court continued the goal of reunification although it found that no progress to
achieving that goal had been made. The court found that DHS had not made reasonable
-2-
CA10-316
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 614
efforts to provide services. It ordered DHS to change case workers, noting that Gilmore could
be a “difficult person to deal with” and that the case worker had failed to return Gilmore’s
phone calls. The court also found Gilmore in contempt of court and ordered her to be jailed
for twenty-four hours, stating that
Ms. Gilmore continuously ignored court directives to remain silent when the court
was ruling on certain matters before it. Ms. Gilmore’s continued talking in defiance
of court orders to remain silent, even after fair warning that she would be held in
contempt of court if she continued to persist, showed contempt of court on her part.
Dr. Paul Deyoub performed a psychological evaluation on Gilmore on April 17, 2009.
Dr. Deyoub stated that he had seen Gilmore when she was fifteen years old and in juvenile
detention and that he had diagnosed her with a conduct disorder. Dr. Deyoub diagnosed
Gilmore with poly-substance dependency and a personality disorder and explained that
Latrice Gilmore shows no interest in raising R.S., she is completely unsympathetic to
him, and she even indicated in the evaluation that she would have done the same
thing, which was to abuse R.S. She blames her family members for all of her problems,
I think she is unfit to parent R.S., she basically abandoned him for the last two years,
and I saw nothing in her attitude that would indicate that she would be a proper
parent.
The court held another permanency-planning hearing on May 26, 2009, and
continued the goal of reunification.1 It ordered Gilmore to follow the recommendations of
her psychological evaluation, including out-patient drug treatment, parenting classes,
individual counseling, and family counseling.
1
The court erroneously stated in the order that DHS had not made reasonable efforts
to provide reunification services. In the termination order, the trial court noted this clerical
error and modified it to state that DHS had made reasonable efforts.
-3-
CA10-316
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 614
The court held another permanency-planning hearing on August 25, 2009. The court
stated that there were no compelling reasons to continue the goal of reunification and
changed it to termination, explaining that
[t]he mother has not materially cooperated with the court orders and has not
benefitted from the services. She failed to appear for today’s hearing. The mother was
seen prior to the hearing today but left reportedly due to the possibility of being
attacked by a relative and a professed lack of protection from such a threat. The
mother has acted inappropriately in family therapy sessions. She is an unfit parent.
The court found that DHS had made reasonable efforts to provide services to achieve the goal
of reunification.
After R.S. was taken into DHS’s custody and placed in foster care, he had two acutecare psychiatric hospitalizations. He was admitted to Youth Home on November 24, 2008,
and was discharged on September 30, 2009, to the Second Chance Ranch. While at Youth
Home, he was found to be a victim of abuse and neglect and diagnosed with major depressive
disorder, anxiety disorder, oppositional-defiant disorder, and parent-child relational problems.
The Youth Home discharge report stated that R.S. did significantly better when he had no
contact with his parents, and when he was required to have family-therapy sessions or any
family contact, his mood and behavior deteriorated and he had severe panic attacks and poor
impulse control. In August 2009, Youth Home’s treatment team made the decision to stop
all contact with R.S.’s parents and family, and after that, he improved. The report stated:
“This child’s whole life has been marked with witnessing chaos, drama and violence.”
The August 25, 2009 court report prepared by Sheila Conroy, R.S.’s therapist at
-4-
CA10-316
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 614
Youth Home, stated that Gilmore was not capable of raising her son and had not shown a
consistent desire to do so. She explained that
R.S. has been very frightened to address any concerns or bring up any issues as they
relate to the relationship with his mother. Since we started family therapy R.S. has
been having panic attacks. Per his medical history he has had these in the past,
however, these are the first we have witnessed them. His anxiety, he says, is because
he feels that he constantly lets his mother down. He fears the biggest let down, which
will be when he tells the judge that he doesn’t want to live with her. R.S. repeatedly
express his fear of her and does not trust her. He believes that she will again abandon
him, as she has done many times in the past by leaving him with some relative or his
father. Ms. Gilmore has certainly demonstrated and expressed her love and care for her
child. However, [she] has demonstrated her inability to adequately parent this child by
providing for his emotional needs and disturbances. Ms. Gilmore does not even
acknowledge his emotional issues.
Gilmore tested positive for THC on both September 28 and October 22, 2009. In
November 2009, Romulus Henry, a social worker, sent a letter to DHS stating that, although
DHS had attempted to set up individual counseling for Gilmore in March 2009, Gilmore had
advised him that he should not call her again; nevertheless, Henry and DHS made further
efforts to bring Gilmore in for therapy from April through the end of September 2009. Henry
wrote that on October 7, 2009, Gilmore showed up for her first therapy appointment and
after that, attended five additional appointments. Henry concluded as follows:
Mrs. Gilmore initially entered treatment with a very poor, argumentative and
blaming attitude. She admitted to using profanity towards Department of Human
Services’ staff, complained about Juvenile Court staff and had nothing good to say
about anyone. During the third session (October 20th), Mrs. Gilmore’s attitude
improved, and she agreed to participate fully in therapy. It is my clinical opinion that
Mrs. Gilmore would benefit from addressing the following issues in treatment:
1. Learn how to effectively manage her anger;
2. Gain insight into interpersonal conflict with family members[;] and
-5-
CA10-316
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 614
3. Address ambivalence in regards to receiving therapy services.
Mrs. Gilmore has limited insight into the dynamics of substance abuse. She
verbalizes that she attends narcotic anonymous meetings; however, she indicated that
she does not feel that she has a drug addiction. Mrs. Gilmore would benefit from
having a sponsor to help her with developing a sobriety maintenance plan.
In summary, I recommend that she continues in weekly individual counseling
to address the aforementioned problem areas. Should you need additional information,
please feel free to contact me.
At the termination hearing held November 16, 2009, Dr. Deyoub testified that
Gilmore did not have the ability at that time to be a parent to R.S. and would not acquire
that ability in the future. He said that he did not believe that she had much regard for R.S.
and that even with therapy, it would be difficult to change her lack of attachment to the
child. He said that she would have to receive therapy, substance-abuse and anger-management
counseling, and demonstrate that she had significantly changed. He stated that since she was
a teenager she had major behavior and personal problems, and he described her as antisocial,
hostile, and short-tempered. He said that because she was thirty years old, her borderline
personality disorder had become ingrained and would be harder to change as time went on.
Sheila Conroy, R.S.’s therapist at Youth Home, testified that she had not immediately
pursued family therapy, as Gilmore had not been motivated to begin or to follow the plan,
and Gilmore began family therapy after the June 2009 hearing and met with R.S. about five
times. Conroy said that Gilmore’s behavior was very inconsistent. At times, she would be
loving to R.S., but at other times, she would ridicule him. She said that Gilmore’s attendance
was inconsistent and that she often did not return R.S.’s phone calls. Conroy said the last
-6-
CA10-316
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 614
family session was before the August 25, 2009 court date. She stated that Gilmore focused on
what “R.S. needed to do” instead of “what she needed to do” as a parent. Conroy said that
after August 2009, she decided that they would no longer continue with meetings between
R.S. and his mother because he deteriorated after each contact.
At that point in the hearing, Gilmore asked to be excused from the hearing. The court
stated that Gilmore had the right to leave if she wished to do so. She remained. Conroy
further testified that she did not believe that Gilmore was stable enough or sufficiently
consistent to be a parent to R.S. She said that R.S. did not trust his mother because she
frequently criticized him and was inconsistent with her approach. At this point, the court
again addressed Gilmore and warned her to stop muttering in court. Conroy concluded that
she did not believe that Gilmore would be able to improve.
Romulus Henry testified about Gilmore’s counseling over the past month. He noted
Gilmore’s reluctance to begin therapy and reported that according to Gilmore, she was not
the one who had abused her son but was having to answer for it. He said that she blamed the
“system,” including DHS, the court, and her family members. Nevertheless, she had indicated
that she was willing to work on those issues and to comply with what was expected of her.
He opined that she had very little insight at that point and that he was unsure whether she
would ever acquire it. He stated that she had begun to develop a relationship with him to
facilitate counseling and that he had seen a change for the better. He said, however, that
Gilmore’s wanting to walk out of the hearing was not an encouraging sign.
-7-
CA10-316
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 614
Tabitha Watson, the family-service worker, testified that Gilmore did not attend
parenting classes and had in September begun to participate in services such as drug screens,
supervised visitation, and individual counseling. Watson said that Gilmore had gone to Youth
Home for family sessions in the summer but had not done so consistently, and when she sat
in on a visit between Gilmore and R.S. at Youth Home, she found Gilmore’s interaction
with R.S. to be inappropriate. She said that she did not believe Gilmore had benefitted from
reunification services. Watson said that after the last hearing, Gilmore had threatened her.
Watson further noted that although Gilmore had begun to participate in services in
September, it was in R.S.’s best interest that Gilmore’s rights be terminated as after sixteen
months R.S. needed permanency. She added that, although the recent visits had gone fairly
well, she believed that Gilmore’s last-minute improved behavior was not sincere.
Gilmore testified that, after living in Dallas throughout the case, she had obtained her
hair stylist’s license in May or June 2009, that she had moved to Arkansas, and that she was
in a position to take R.S. back. She also testified about having worked at Chili’s, as a stylist,
and as a tax preparer. She stated that she was grossing between $2000 and $3500 a month and
was still on unemployment. She said that she did not believe that R.S.’s father had abused
him, nor did she believe that she had emotionally abused R.S.
Gilmore argues on appeal that the trial court erred because she was not provided with
meaningful reunification services, given her psychological impairment (borderline personality
disorder with anti-social features of long-standing), as required by the Americans with
-8-
CA10-316
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 614
Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101.2 She argues that the court should have given her
additional reunification services and a longer period of time to work on the goal of
reunification. Gilmore, however, did not raise or establish that she was entitled to ADA
protection, nor did the trial court make any ruling on that argument. It is, therefore, not
preserved for appellate review. Ruble v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 75 Ark. App. 321, 57
S.W.3d 233 (2001). For the first time on appeal, she also argues that due process required that
her impairment be reasonably accommodated. We will not address constitutional arguments
that were not raised below. Seago v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 767, ___
S.W.3d ___.
We affirm the trial court’s refusal to give appellant more time to work on reunification,
even though she made some minor progress in the two months before the termination
hearing. Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-341(a)(4)(A) (Repl. 2009) provides: “A
parent’s resumption of contact or overtures toward participating in the case plan or following
the orders of the court following the permanency planning hearing and preceding the
termination of parental rights hearing is an insufficient reason to not terminate parental
2
In order to qualify for protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
proponent must establish that she suffered from disability. Under the act, “disability” is
defined at 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1), which reads as follows:
The term “disability” means, with respect to an individual-(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major
life activities of such individual;
(B) a record of such impairment; or
(C) being regarded as having such an impairment.
-9-
CA10-316
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 614
rights.” Moreover, there was little indication that Gilmore would ever become an adequate
parent to R.S. She never acknowledged that R.S.’s father had abused him, that she had placed
him in a vulnerable situation, that she had emotionally abused him, or that she needed to
change.
Affirmed.
VAUGHT, C.J., and PITTMAN J., agree.
-10-
CA10-316
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.