Sara Carr and Benjamin Noble v. DHS, 2021 Ark. App. 476
December 1, 2021 | Termination, Affirmed
ON APPEAL: Grounds for Termination
DHS opened a protective services case in April 2018, and then removed the child and filed its DN petition in July, alleging abandonment, abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, and parental unfitness. The trial court held the adjudication hearing in September, and found that the child was dependent-neglected on the basis of parental unfitness. Reunification was set as the case goal, and the parents were ordered to engage in services.
The case was reviewed in February 2019, and the trial court found the parents had completed some, but not all services. The goal remained reunification, and the child remained in the custody of DHS. The first permanency-planning hearing was held in July 2019. The trial court found that the parents had partially complied with the case plan, maintained the goal of reunification, and left the child in DHS’s custody. The parents were found to be in compliance with the case plan in review orders from November 2019, January 2020, and March 2020. The trial court had also approved a visitation plan that would transition to a trial home placement. The second permanency-planning hearing was held in July 2020, where the trial court approved a trial home placement, found the parents to be in compliance with the case plan, and kept the goal of the case as reunification. A review order from September 2020, however, limited the parents to four hours of supervised visits per week. The visitations were then temporarily suspended in early November 2020, and the case goal was changed to adoption in December. At issue was the parents’ housekeeping, transportation, and poor engagement with IFS.
DHS filed a termination petition in January 2021, alleging the “subsequent factors” and “aggravated-circumstances” grounds, and that termination was in the best interest of the child. The hearing was held in March 2021, and the trial court granted as to both grounds. (The COA discusses the testimony at some length in its opinion, and it is worth a read through.)
On appeal, the parents argue that the trial court erred in granting termination on the grounds alleged. The COA began by noting that the child was just over three years old, and had been out of the parents’ care for thirty-one months. During that time, the parents had been offered numerous services, including intensive parenting therapy. However, despite the services offered, the COA stated “the evidence is extensive that [the parents] have shown no progress.” The court also noted that the testimony was that the child “did not look to his parents for safety and security and that his interactions with, and attachment to, his parents were worse at the end of the trial home placement.” Also that “after the trial home placement, the child struggled with behavioral and sleep issues”, and that he “was doing well before the trial home placement, but after the trial home placement, he was a different, sad, angry, frustrated, clingy, and aggressive boy.”
The COA summed the case up by stating, “while [the parents] completed the services provided to them during this nearly three-year-long case, there is significant evidence that either they did not learn the skills necessary to safely care for [the child] or they believe they do not need help parenting [the child].” Thus, there was little likelihood that further services to the family would result in a successful reunification.
The COA also noted that the parents’ arguments amounted to a request to reweigh the evidence, which they do not do. Blasingame, 2018 Ark. App. 71.
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
Stay Connected
