 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Banks v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Services6/22/2005
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Teresa and Patrick Banks appeal from an order of the Sebastian County Circuit Court terminating their parental rights to their two children, D.B. and B.B. On appeal, Teresa argues that the trial court erred in finding that there was clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the best interest of the children and that one of the grounds was proven; that the Arkansas Department of Human Services, hereinafter "DHS," made reasonable efforts to provide services to reunify the family; and that DHS had presented clear and convincing evidence that an appropriate permanency plan existed and that the children were likely to be adopted. Patrick argues that the termination should be set aside because the court had no jurisdiction because DHS failed to comply with Rule 4(f) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure and that the trial court erred in finding that DHS had presented clear and convincing evidence that an appropriate permanency plan existed and that the children were likely to be adopted. We affirm.
On January 21, 2003, DHS filed a dependency-neglect petition alleging environmental neglect and parental drug use. The subjects of the petition were D.B. and B.B., who, at the time the petition was filed, were six-and-a-half-years old and seven-months old, respectively. After several review hearings, DHS petitioned to terminate the parental rights of Teresa and Patrick. On September 1, 2004, an order was entered terminating the parental rights. In the order, the trial court found that there was "partial compliance" with the case plan in that both parents had completed drug/alcohol assessments, parenting classes, and "some" drug screens, and they had visited the children on a regular basis, with Teresa attending 75 of 81 scheduled visits and Patrick attending 60 of 81. However, the order also noted that neither parent had completed drug treatment and that they "failed to provide proof of stable, appropriate housing and sufficient income." Further, it found that Patrick failed to appear at the termination hearing and had absconded after being convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine. Regarding Teresa, the order recited that she had given birth to twins on June 29, 2003, and that both infants tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamines and that Teresa tested positive for methamphetamine the very day of the hearing.
The grounds for termination of parental rights must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. M.T. v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 58 Ark. App. 302, 305, 952 S.W.2d 177, 179 (1997). When the burden of proving a disputed fact is by clear and convincing evidence, the question on appeal is whether the trial court's finding that the disputed fact was proved by clear and convincing evidence is clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Dinkins v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (2001). This court reviews termination of parental rights cases de novo. Id.
Teresa first argues that the trial court erred in finding that there was clear and convincing evidence that termination of parental rights was in the children's best interest and that one of the grounds was proven. In support of her argument, she points to the testimony establishing that she had partially complied with the case plan and asserts that this achievement, despite the "obstacles" of a seventh-grade education, a third-grade reading level, a personality conflic
Page 1 2 3 Arkansas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|