Mercado v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2017 Ark. App. 495
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Infant A.M., born Feb. 27, 2016, was removed after medical exam revealed skull fractures, head trauma, brain damage, and a subdural hematoma; injuries were deemed indicatory of physical abuse.
- DHS obtained a probable-cause order and later adjudicated A.M. dependent-neglected, terminated reunification services, and set adoption as the permanency goal.
- The adjudication included a finding that abuse likely was perpetrated by a parent or stepparent and described the injuries as life-endangering.
- Mercado appealed earlier orders (including denial of a second medical expert); this court affirmed those rulings in Mercado I.
- The circuit court later terminated Mercado’s parental rights, citing statutory grounds based on the adjudication (abuse endangering the child and aggravated circumstances) and finding termination was in the child’s best interest.
- Mercado’s counsel filed a no-merit brief and moved to withdraw; Mercado filed pro se points challenging neglect/abuse findings and other procedural matters. The court granted withdrawal and affirmed the termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination were proved | Mercado contends she did not abuse or neglect A.M.; challenges to adjudication were not properly preserved | DHS argues grounds rest on prior adjudication findings that were appealable earlier and were either litigated or not timely challenged | Court held grounds were supported by prior adjudication and not open to challenge in this termination appeal |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interest | Mercado argues she completed many requirements and should have had more time; disputes witness credibility and timing of injury | DHS and GAL argue evidence (severity of injuries, adoptability, risk of harm) supports termination; deference to circuit court credibility findings | Court found clear-and-convincing evidence supported best-interest finding and affirmed termination |
| Whether appellate counsel’s no-merit brief and withdrawal were proper | Mercado alleges counsel failed to secure a second expert and did not adequately pursue defenses | Counsel certified that adverse rulings were considered and no meritorious issues exist; DHS and GAL adopted that position | Court concluded counsel complied with no-merit procedures and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw |
| Whether pro se arguments could be raised on appeal | Mercado raised new factual and procedural claims pro se | DHS and GAL responded that new arguments cannot be raised for first time on appeal and weight of evidence is for trial court | Court agreed pro se points were unavailing or untimely and affirmed the judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131 (2004) (establishes no-merit briefing requirements in termination appeals)
- Houseman v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Services, 491 S.W.3d 153 (Ark. App. 2016) (two-step framework and clear-and-convincing standard in termination cases)
- Mercado v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Services, 519 S.W.3d 715 (Ark. App. 2017) (prior appeal affirming adjudication-stage rulings in this matter)
- Wafford v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Services, 495 S.W.3d 96 (Ark. App. 2016) (deference to circuit court factfinding on best-interest determinations)