Sharon Anderson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children, 608 S.W.3d 915

DHS removed four children after two older girls alleged sexual abuse by their stepfather, Jamie; Jamie was criminally charged and later had his parental rights terminated. Sharon, the mother, was implicated for permitting the abuse.
At adjudication the court found by clear and convincing evidence that Jamie had sexually abused the children and that Sharon had allowed it or failed to protect them.
The case plan required Sharon to complete a psychological evaluation, counseling, parenting classes, stable employment, drug screening, and supervised visitation; DHS provided services and referrals.
Sharon completed a psychological evaluation (which found poor judgment and limited insight) but did not engage in ongoing counseling, missed 23 visits, moved frequently (including living in a van), and became difficult for DHS to contact.
DHS filed to terminate Sharon’s parental rights alleging aggravated circumstances, subsequent factors, and abandonment; DHS presented evidence of adoptability and potential harm if returned to Sharon.
The circuit court found aggravated circumstances and that termination was in the children’s best interests; the Court of Appeals affirmed and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw under the Linker-Flores no-merit procedure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statutory grounds (aggravated circumstances) were proven	Sharon asserted she was trying to comply (employment attempts, visits) and could reunify	DHS argued Sharon’s instability, nonparticipation in counseling, missed visits, and inability to provide a safe home showed little likelihood services would reunify	Court: Aggravated circumstances proved by clear and convincing evidence; ground supports termination
Whether termination was in children’s best interests	Sharon contended reunification was possible and she sought work/visits when able	DHS showed adoptability, foster home availability, and specific risks (inability to provide food, clothing, medical care; poor judgment)	Court: Termination was in children’s best interests
Whether appellate counsel complied with Linker‑Flores/no‑merit procedure	Sharon did not file pro se points; implicit argument that appeal could be meritorious	Counsel filed a no‑merit brief and motion to withdraw after review of record	Court: Counsel complied with Linker‑Flores; motion to withdraw granted; appeal without merit
Whether conflict existed between bench ruling (“substantial evidence”) and written order ("clear and convincing")	Sharon could argue the bench standard language was erroneous	DHS relied on written order stating correct standard	Court: Written order controls; any oral inconsistency is harmless

Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131 (2004) (no‑merit procedure for termination appeals)
Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207 (2001) (de novo review of termination orders)
J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243 (1997) (appellate standard for clear and convincing findings)
Mitchell v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 430 S.W.3d 851 (2013) (statutory requirement that at least one ground exists and best interest proven)
Lee v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 285 S.W.3d 277 (2008) (only one statutory ground needed to terminate)
McFarland v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 210 S.W.3d 143 (2005) (adoptability relevant to best interest)
Latham v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 256 S.W.3d 543 (2007) (identification of particular harms supports termination)
Houseman v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 491 S.W.3d 153 (2016) (court may affirm despite omitted adverse ruling in no‑merit brief)
Bennett v. Bennett, 496 S.W.3d 409 (2016) (written order controls over conflicting oral ruling)
Stills v. Stills, 361 S.W.3d 823 (2010) (principle that written judgment controls oral statements)