Carroll v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2014 Ark. App. 199
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- DHS filed for emergency custody (Feb 13, 2012) after a true finding that appellant Tonikia Carroll’s boyfriend sexually abused daughter T.C.; Carroll later allowed him back into the home. Court entered ex parte emergency custody order.
- Children adjudicated dependent-neglected (Apr 11, 2012); initial case plan was reunification and Carroll received supervised visitation and orders to complete psychological evaluation and stabilize housing/employment.
- Over the following months Carroll showed instability: multiple housing moves, homelessness, eviction, unemployment, utility shutoffs, and failure to maintain consistent protective choices; psychological evaluation diagnosed depression, personality disorder, mild intellectual disability, poor judgment, and dependence on males.
- After 15 months of placement and services, the trial court changed the goal to termination (May 1, 2013); DHS petitioned to terminate parental rights (May 17, 2013).
- At the termination hearing experts and DHS witnesses testified Carroll could not protect the children and the children were adoptable; trial court found statutory grounds and best interest by clear and convincing evidence and terminated parental rights (Aug 22, 2013).
- Appellant’s counsel filed a no-merit brief under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9 and moved to withdraw; Carroll filed pro se points. The court of appeals affirmed and granted counsel’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to terminate parental rights | Carroll: she has accepted responsibility, completed therapy/classes, can protect children | DHS/State: Carroll remained unable to provide stable, safe home; services provided but conditions not remedied | Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported termination under §9-27-341(b)(3)(B) grounds and best-interest finding |
| Admission of hearsay (medical-treatment exception) | Carroll: objected to foster-mother’s report of sexualized touching between children | DHS: statement admissible under Ark. R. Evid. 803(4) as made for medical treatment | Harmless / not prejudicial — similar testimony was admitted elsewhere; no reversible error |
| Exclusion of question to foster mother about intent to raise children | Carroll: sought to show foster mother’s intent | DHS/Trial court: question irrelevant | Not reversible — exclusion was not relevant and not prejudicial |
| Counsel’s motion to withdraw via no-merit brief | Carroll’s counsel: no meritorious appeal after review of record; moved to withdraw | Carroll: filed pro se points but no grounds for reversal | Granted — appellate court agreed appeal was wholly without merit and allowed withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131 (2004) (procedural requirements for an appellate counsel filing a no‑merit brief under Rule 6‑9)
- Dinkins v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 344 Ark. 207 (2001) (termination appeals reviewed de novo)
- Anderson v. Douglas, 310 Ark. 633 (1992) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- J.T. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 329 Ark. 243 (1997) (appellate standard for clear‑and‑convincing findings)
- M.T. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 58 Ark. App. 302 (1997) (statutory requirement that grounds and best interest be proved by clear and convincing evidence)
- Lewis v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 364 Ark. 243 (2005) (omission of adverse rulings in no‑merit brief may be acceptable when rulings are clearly not reversible error)