Riley v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 421
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CA11-136
Opinion Delivered
JUNE 1, 2011
PATRICK RILEY
APPELLANT
V.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES
APPELLEE
APPEAL FROM THE
INDEPENDENCE COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. JV-08-96]
HONORABLE LEE WISDOM
HARROD, JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
CLIFF HOOFMAN, Judge
The Independence County Circuit Court terminated appellant Patrick Riley’s parental
rights in his two daughters, A.R. and L.R. Riley’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw and a no-merit brief, pursuant to Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Department of Human
Services, 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2003), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-9(i)
(2011), stating that there are no meritorious grounds to support an appeal. The clerk of our
court mailed a certified copy of counsel’s motion and brief to Riley’s last known address,
informing him of his right to file pro se points for reversal. He has not done so. The Arkansas
Department of Human Services (DHS) and the ad litem attorney have chosen not to file a
brief. We affirm the termination order and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
In May 2008, DHS petitioned the circuit court for emergency custody of A.R. and
L.R. after receiving a report of parental drug use in the children’s presence. The court granted
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 421
the emergency petition and held a probable-cause hearing, at which Riley tested positive for
methamphetamine, amphetamines, opiates, and benzodiazepines. In June 2008, the children
were adjudicated dependent-neglected. The adjudication order established a goal of
reunification and directed Riley to, among other things, maintain a safe and stable home
environment, obtain stable employment, and refrain from using illegal substances.
The goal of reunification remained intact throughout a year and a half of review
orders. In all but one order, the court found that Riley had not complied with the case plan
and the court’s directives. In February 2010, DHS filed a petition to terminate Riley’s parental
rights, and a termination hearing was held in July 2010. By that point, the children, ages four
and five, had been in DHS custody for over two years.
Evidence at the termination hearing revealed that Riley had been incarcerated on
theft-of-property and forgery charges during the case and that he had previously served time
for possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Additionally, he had no stable
housing or employment, nor had he fully addressed his drug issues, admitting to using drugs
several months before the hearing. He also failed to visit the children during the case, despite
being out of jail periodically and having the opportunity to do so. The children’s great-aunt,
Dorothy Adcox, testified that she wanted to adopt the children and preferred that they have
no contact with Riley. She recounted an incident in which Riley had burst into her home
and attacked her husband while he was sleeping. On this proof, the circuit court terminated
Riley’s parental rights.
2
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 421
After a careful review of the record, we conclude that an appeal from the circuit court’s
termination decision would be wholly without merit. Riley did not comply with court orders
or the case plan and did not remedy the drug issues that caused the children’s removal. He
also did not accomplish any of the parenting goals set forth by the court during the two-year
history of the case. Moreover, it did not appear that he was capable of accomplishing those
goals in a time frame consistent with the children’s developmental needs. We further agree
with counsel that several other adverse rulings at the termination hearing, duly discussed in
counsel’s brief, present no issues of arguable merit for appeal.
One adverse ruling that counsel did not discuss was the court’s decision to terminate
Riley’s parental rights rather than grant his request to award permanent custody of the
children to Dorothy Adcox. Though not briefed, this ruling clearly is not a meritorious
ground for appeal. See Beeson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 317, ___ S.W.3d
___. Ms. Adcox expressed an unequivocal preference for adoption, and Riley had virtually
no relationship with his children, such that a less-restrictive alternative would work to his
benefit.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
G LOVER and A BRAMSON, JJ., 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.