Beaty v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2017 Ark. App. 621

Infant L.M. suffered life-threatening brain injuries on July 2016; father Anthony McKown was found to have inflicted the injuries and was jailed; mother Lisa Beaty was charged with first-degree child endangerment. DHS obtained emergency custody and an adjudication finding aggravated circumstances.
Adjudication found Beaty left L.M. with McKown (a registered sex offender) and thus subjected the child to aggravated circumstances; Beaty did not appeal that adjudication.
DHS obtained a no-reunification order and filed to terminate parental rights; petition alleged dependency/neglect, subsequent-factor, and aggravated-circumstances grounds.
Medical testimony established permanent brain damage, seizures, feeding-tube dependence, and need for future skull surgeries; foster family was caring for L.M. and wished to adopt.
At the termination hearing, Beaty minimized the severity and cause of L.M.’s injuries (attributing them to IUGR), expressed disbelief that McKown inflicted them, and demonstrated limited appreciation of L.M.’s lifetime care needs.
The circuit court terminated Beaty’s parental rights on all alleged statutory grounds and found termination was in L.M.’s best interest; Beaty appealed, counsel filed a no-merit brief and motion to withdraw, and the Court of Appeals affirmed and granted withdrawal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Beaty)	Defendant's Argument (DHS)	Held
Whether counsel may withdraw after filing a no-merit brief	Counsel’s brief shows no meritorious appeal; Beaty didn’t file pro se points	No merit in appeal; withdrawal appropriate under Rule 6-9(i)	Court accepted no-merit brief, found appeal meritless, and granted withdrawal
Whether the aggravated-circumstances adjudication can be challenged on appeal from termination	Beaty sought to challenge findings supporting termination	DHS: adjudication finding was an appealable order; Beaty failed to appeal then, so moot now	Court held she cannot challenge unappealed adjudication; it supplies statutory ground for termination
Whether termination was in the child’s best interest (adoptability and potential harm)	Beaty argued she could care for L.M. long-term and disputed cause/severity of injuries	DHS presented adoptability evidence and showed Beaty’s lack of understanding and unwillingness to accept severity of injuries	Court found clear-and-convincing proof termination was in child’s best interest; not clearly erroneous
Whether adverse evidentiary rulings (hearsay, curtailed testimony) merit reversal	Beaty implied rulings were improper and should be reviewed	DHS: rulings were within discretion and not reversible error	Court held those rulings would not provide a meritorious ground for reversal

Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (Ark. 2004) (procedural rule allowing counsel to file no-merit brief under Rule 6-9(i) and standards for counsel withdrawal in parental-rights appeals)