Calahan v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
429 S.W.3d 372
Ark. Ct. App.
2013
Check Treatment

Jеremiah CALAHAN, Appellant v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES and Minor Child, Appellees

No. CV-13-256

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Sept. 18, 2013

2013 Ark. App. 508

Appellant also makes an argument concerning the lack of services she received from DHS. Evidence shows that the court made prior reasonable-efforts findings in this case, which were not appealed. The failure to appeal from any of thе previous orders in which a circuit court has determined that DHS made meaningful efforts toward reunification precludes this court from reviewing those findings with respect to the periods of time covered by those prior orders.10 As such, this court is precluded from reviewing the findings with respect to the time periods covered by the prior orders.11

The only time period appropriately reviewable in this appeal is the period of time between the November 14, 2012 review hearing, and the permanency-planning hearing. Appellant testified that she had not received any services since her case was moved to Helena. Tеstimony revealed that she was assigned a new case manager in October 2012. According to Bragg, when she initially made contact with appellant, appellant informed Bragg that appellant was moving and she did not provide Bragg with an address. Bragg testified that she had only recently been able to determine aрpellant‘s whereabouts. The court listened to the testimony and ultimately concluded that appellant‘s lack of services were due to her failure to keep DHS properly informed of her whereabouts. We cannot say that this finding was clearly erroneous. Therefore, we affirm.

Affirmed.

HARRISON and WYNNE, JJ., agree.

Deborah R. Sailings, Arkansas Public Dеfender Commission, for appellant.

No response.

DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge.

The parental rights of Jeremiah Calahan to his daughter, L.J.C., born February 16, 2010, were terminated by an order entered December 26, 2012.1 Pursuant to , and Rule 6-9(i) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, Calahan‘s attorney has filed a no-merit brief asserting that there are no issues that would support a meritorious appeal and a motion requesting to be relieved as counsel. The clerk of this court provided Calahan with copies of his counsel‘s motion and brief and notified him of his right to file pro se points of appeal. Calahan has filed points, but DHS has not filed a responsive brief.

This cаse began in February 2010 when DHS filed a petition for emergency custody of L.J.C. on two bases: that L.J.C.‘s sister, L.C., died at eleven months of age in Virginia as a result of subdural hematomas from being shaken; and that Calahan‘s stepson, L.D., was ‍‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‍placed in foster care in Virginia due to multiple injuries he sustained while in the Calahans’ care, including healed burn marks, broken bones, bruises, and blunt-force trauma to the abdomen that resulted in a perforated intestine requiring emergency surgery. The

Calahans maintained that L.D.‘s injuries were self-inflicted; by contrast, L.D. had not sustained any unusual injuries after being removed from the Calahan home. The trial court granted DHS‘s request for emergency custody. An adjudication hearing was held in April 2010, at which time L.J.C. was adjudicated dependent/neglected based on the death of L.C. and the severe injuries sustained by L.D. A permanency-planning hearing was held in February 2011; Calahan was not present. The trial court found that L.J.C. had been subjected to aggravated circumstances and thаt there was little likelihood of reunification; the goal of the case was changed from reunification to termination. A petition for termination of parental rights was filed in April 2011, and a hearing was held in September 2012 on that petition. After the hearing, the trial court found that it was in the best interest of L.J.C. for Calahan‘s parеntal rights to be terminated and that DHS had proven grounds for terminating Jeremiah‘s parental rights under Ark. Code Ann. §§ 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a) (the child has been adjudicated dependent/neglected and has continued out of the parent‘s custody for twelve months and the conditions causing removal have not been remedied by the parent despite a meaningful effort by the department to rehabilitate); (b)(3)(B)(vi)(a) (the court has found the juvenile or a sibling dependent/neglected as a result of neglect or abuse that could endanger the life of the child, any of which was perpetrated by the juvenile‘s parent or step-parent); (b)(3)(B)(ix)(a)(2) (the parent is found by a court of competent jurisdiction, including the juvenile division of circuit court, to have committed a felony battery that results in serious bodily injury to any juvenile); (b)(3)(B)(vii) (other factors arose subsequent to the filing of the original petition for dependency/neglect that demonstrated that the return of the juvenile to the custody of the parent was contrаry to the juvenile‘s health, safety, or welfare); and (b)(3)(B)(ix)(a)(3) (the parent is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have subjected any juvenile to aggravated circumstances).

At the termination hearing, Lisa Wall, a child protective-services investigator with the City of Virginia Beach Department of Human Services, testified that she had been involved with three investigations of Calahan, that she had interviewed him in April and May 2009 regarding the blunt-force abdominal injuries sustained by L.D., and that Calahan had maintained that L.D.‘s injuries were self-inflicted. Wall said that she made findings against Calahan for internal injuries, physical abuse, physical neglect, and inadequate supеrvision based on L.D.‘s injuries; she further stated that since L.D. had been placed in foster care, he had not sustained any significant injuries. She testified that while the investigation on L.D. was still open and active, she received another referral in May 2009 on the Calahans’ daughter L.C., which resulted in Wall petitioning for an emergency removаl order for L.D. and an emergency protection order for L.C., both of which were granted. Wall stated that, to her knowledge, her findings were not appealed and that L.D. was still in protective custody. However, L.C. had sustained severe subdural hemorrhaging and a skull fracture, and as a result of those injuries, she died in May 2009. When interviewеd, Calahan stated that he did not know how L.C. could have been injured, and he denied that either he or his wife hurt L.C. In 2011, Virginia DHS filed charges against Julie Calahan in the death of L.C., and she later pleaded guilty to the murder of L.C. Wall testified that Jeremiah Calahan was not charged in L.C.‘s death, and she admitted that there was no physical evidence to link him to L.D.‘s injuries.

Annette Scott, an employee of Arkansas DHS‘s Children and Family Services, testified that neither of the Calahans completed in-home counseling; that they were both noncompliant with the case ‍‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‍plan; that the grandparents did not complete the paperwork for relative placement; and that no other relative inquired about relative placement. She stated that L.J.C. was adoptable.

Jeremiah Calahan testified that he was still married to Julie. When asked about L.D.‘s injuries, Calahan continued to assert that L.D.‘s injuries were self-inflicted. He stated that after L.D. was removed from their home, he and Julie made аrrangements with Child Protective Services in Virginia for L.C. to remain in the home by having his brother, Stephen, move into the house with them. It was after Stephen moved in that L.C. suffered her fatal injuries.

Nicole Hampton, L.J.C.‘s foster mother, testified that she would like to adopt L.J.C. if parental rights were terminated.

In , our supreme court set forth the standard of review in appeals concerning the termination of parental rights:

Our standard of review in cases involving the termination of parental rights is well established. Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-341(b)(3) (Repl.2009) requires an order terminating parental rights to be based upon clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing evidence is that degree of proof that will produce in the fact-finder a firm conviction as to the allegation sought to be established. . When the burden of proving a disputed fact is by clear and convincing evidence, the question that must be answered on appeal is whether the trial court‘s finding that the disputed fact was proven by clеar and convincing evidence was clearly erroneous. 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. Id. Such cases are reviewed de novo on appeal. . However, we do give a high degree of deference to the trial court, as it is in a far superior ‍‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‍position to observe the parties before it and judge the credibility of the witnesses. .

In order to terminate parental rights, a trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the best interest of the juvenile, taking into consideration (1) the likelihood that the juvenile will be аdopted if the termination petition is granted; and (2) the potential harm, specifically addressing the effect on the health and safety of the child, caused by returning the child to the custody of the parent. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(A)(i) & (ii) (Repl. 2009). Additionally, the trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that one or more statutory grounds for terminаtion exists. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B).

Here, L.J.C.‘s siblings had suffered severe abuse—even fatal in L.C.‘s case—while in the care of Jeremiah and Julie Calahan. In the adjudication order, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that either Julie or Jeremiah had caused the death of L.C. and that Jeremiah had caused severe physical injury to L.D. While the Calahans did appeal the adjudication order, , 2011 WL 714966, they did not chal-

lenge the sufficiency of the evidence of the finding of dependency/neglect made at the adjudication hearing. It is clearly not in L.J.C.‘s best interest to be returned to Calahan‘s custody. Calahan‘s stepson had been severely injured while in Calahаn‘s custody, and Calahan‘s daughter had suffered fatal injuries. Given such evidence, the trial court is not required to return L.J.C. to the Calahans’ custody to see if she will also be injured. Furthermore, L.J.C. was clearly adoptable, as her foster mother testified that she would like to adopt her if parental rights were terminated. With respeсt to the grounds for termination, only one ground is required to be proven for termination. . Here, the trial court found that L.J.C.‘s life could be endangered based on the fact that L.D. had suffered severe physical injury at Calahan‘s hands, which satisfies one of the grounds to be proven for termination.

Adverse Rulings

There were several rulings during the course of the termination hearing adverse to Calahan. First, during Lisa Wall‘s testimony, she began to testify as to what a physician had told her caused L.D.‘s injuries; Calahan‘s attorney objected on the basis that it was hearsay and that Calahan could not confront the doctor with regard to his opinions because the doctor wаs not being called as a witness. The trial court overruled the objections; however, Wall did not testify to anything the doctor told her. Therefore, this adverse ruling provides no basis for reversal.

The next adverse ruling occurred when Wall was testifying about the injuries L.D. suffered that caused his removal from the Calahans’ home and whethеr L.D. had suffered any further injuries after being removed from the home. Calahan‘s attorney objected on the basis that that information was not relevant to the termination hearing. The trial court overruled the objection. A circuit court‘s evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. . “Relevant evidence” is dеfined as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact than is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Ark. R. Evid. 401. Here, the question was relevant. It was necessary to determine ‍‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‍if L.J.C. would be safe if shе remained in the Calahan home. Jeremiah Calahan had told authorities that L.D. had injured himself; therefore, it was relevant to know whether L.D. had injured himself after he was removed from the home, or if Jeremiah Calahan‘s explanation for the injuries was likely untruthful.

During Calahan‘s testimony, counsel for DHS showed him the report from the psychological examination performed on him and asked him to read from it. Calahan‘s counsel objected on the basis that his client could not identify the report, and the document had to be authenticated in order to be introduced or read into the record. The trial court ruled that DHS could proceed regarding the diagnosis because Calahan recalled the evaluation, but ruled that DHS could not ask Calahan what the psychological evaluator actually said. Calahan testified that the evaluation stated that he was diagnosed with narcissism; however, no other line of questioning on this issue was pursued. This adverse ruling doеs not create a meritorious issue.

Next, DHS counsel asked Calahan if he was aware that L.D. had indicated that Calahan was the person who punched him in the stomach. Calahan‘s counsel objected on the basis of hearsay, and the trial court ruled that the question had

been asked and answered earlier. Cаlahan then responded that L.D. would sit and hit himself, and “other people also seen that.” DHS objected on the basis of hearsay, which the trial court sustained. Calahan then testified that L.D. was caught at the hospital hitting himself and that the hospital employees saw L.D. hit himself. DHS moved to strike that testimony, which the trial court granted. As Calahan‘s counsel points out, it is unclear from the testimony whether other people told Calahan that they had seen L.D. hitting himself, or if other people were present when Calahan saw L.D. hitting himself and saw it as well. Even if the statement was not hearsay and should have been allowed into evidence instead of being striсken, there was no prejudice. In the adjudication order, the trial court found that Calahan had caused L.D.‘s injuries, a finding that was not appealed. Therefore, these adverse rulings do not present any meritorious issues for reversal.

Next, Calahan testified that he was not sure how long it was between L.D. being injured and when L.C. was taken to the hospital. As he continued to testify about L.C., his counsel objected to any further testimony about L.C. because DHS had previously entered testimony that Calahan‘s wife, Julie, had pleaded guilty to causing L.C.‘s death, that no charges regarding L.C.‘s death were brought against Calahan, and that Calahan had nothing to do with L.C.‘s death. DHS counsel responded that he was only trying to show Calahan‘s response after learning that L.C. was injured. The trial court allowed the line of questioning. Calahan testified as to the information he received about L.C.‘s injuries. Nothing in this testimony was harmful to Calahan and in fact showed his concern about what happened to L.C.

The last adverse ruling occurred when Calahan testified that L.D. had been diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and was bipolar. DHS objected to Calahan giving diagnoses, and the trial court sustained the objection. Calahan‘s counsel then rephrased the question, asking what medications L.D. was taking, and Calahan was allowed to testify that the medications were for ODD and bipolar disorder. Therefore, L.D.‘s diagnoses were ultimately entered into evidence.

Calahan‘s Pro Se Points

Calahan‘s statement of points is an argument that his attorney was ineffective because she believed that he was guilty and did not try to defend him at the hearing. However, this objectiоn was not made to the trial court, and therefore it cannot be addressed now on appeal. Arkansas appellate courts will not consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as a point on appeal unless it was first raised in the trial court. , 2011 WL 5429565.

After carefully examining the recоrd and the brief presented to us, we hold that counsel has complied with the requirements established by the Arkansas Supreme Court for no-merit appeals in termination cases and conclude that the appeal is wholly without merit. Accordingly, counsel‘s motion to withdraw is granted and the order terminating Calahan‘s parental rights is affirmed.

Affirmed; motion to be relieved granted.

WOOD and BROWN, JJ., agree.

Notes

1
Julie Calahan‘s parental rights were also terminated ‍‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌‍in this order, but she is not a party to this appeal.
10
Anderson, supra.
11
Id.
Read the detailed case summary