*1 cir Finally, say cannot that the London v. we credibility. their and determine clearly failing erred in to find cuit court State, II, Sterling Linton violat strike essentially conceded trial, McMiller At noted, race- Batson. As the State’s ed strikes, Morgan and Venoit that two reason for the was that neutral ^strike they fol- |4Lois Reed, valid because any or have inter respond Linton did not challenges for cause lowed unsuccessful just and he was during questioning, action expressed doubt jurors after both issue, On this we “staring space.” off into over ability judgment to sit their about as the arbiter of defer to the circuit court Likewise, McMiller does not someone. superior position in a credibility as it was validity of the State’s ratio- challenged interaction and to observe both Linton’s appeal. How- challenge on nale for their asserting its prosecutor’s demeanor that the reasons ever, argue does McMiller reason. We hold that the cir race-neutral Helms, challenging offered the State clearly denying err in cuit court did not Litton, Hicks, valid. were not challenge. Batson McMiller’s Supreme Pursuant to Arkansas Court it im asserts that was McMiller 3(i) (2013), record been Rule has 4— to strike Helms be proper for the State motions, objections, for all reviewed unemployed and young cause she adversely to requests that were decided However, questioning. respond prejudicial McMiller and no error has been justified State further its we note found. asserting that it also struck strike Prater, man, who, like a white Nicholas Affirmed.
Helms, young unemployed. was also similarly per situated venire
Given that races were treated
sons of different
same, say cannot the circuit we explanation that this
court’s decision clearly against pre
race-neutral was the evidence. v. ponderance of Jackson State, supra. Crystal SCHAIBLE, Appellant per the State’s use of a v. Regarding challenge to remove Hicks from emptory DEPARTMENT OF ARKANSAS trial, jury, the State claimed that its and Minor HUMAN SERVICES Hicks was because she decision to strike Children, Appellees. job on her and “her mind deadlines No. CV-14-315. in the Addition just was not courtroom.” noted and her husband and ally, the State of Arkansas. Appeals Court with felo previously charged son had 8,Oct. McMiller neither refutes ny offenses. argues these reasons nor that the reasons State not race-neutral
given by the are say
explanations. Accordingly, we cannot
that the circuit court erred in find explanation State’s for strik race-neutral.
ing Hicks was *2 Finocchi,
Elizabeth J. Arkansas Public Commission, appellant. Defender the case complete opportunity Legal Op- McNulty, County B. Tabitha PLLC, expected that it in its order Group, and stated erations; and Chrestman license, GED, Chrestman, a driver’s appellees. obtain to obtain L. by: Keith meetings counseling, attend attend GRUBER, Judge. RITA W. and ran- regular regularly, and submit *3 results. The Schaible, negative with appeals dom tests |,Appellant, Crystal County year Cir- was held a Benton final termination an order rights court en- parental terminating later in October cuit Court- She son, Z.B., 2012. terminating appellant’s pa- born June order tered its evidence was appeal January on 2014. contends rental circuit court’s insufficient events that led to The course of its dis- the court abused and that decision appellant did suggests that termination recall a wit- allowing DHS to cretion many of the with achieve and affirm find no error ness. We Immediately after requirements. court’s court’s order. circuit birth, to be in a appellant appeared Z.B.’s began, appellant this case Before with with a woman relationship stable DHS from 2009 involved The court living, Dani. whom she was DHS’s older children. regarding two and, unsupervised visits allowed gradually it was discovered began when involvement Z.B. placement home eventually, a trial exposure prenatal had that both children April Dani con- DHS involvement marijuana, weeks, following ended after six which inadequate into investigations tinued with appellant.1 Dani and break-up between food, continued clothing; supervision, and homelessness. by appellant; use caregiver Z.B. with a They had left rights were voluntari- Appellant’s over Memo- trip on a float they while went two children on to those ly terminated |sDay testified Appellant weekend. rial us The case before February 2012. a few beers and that she had consumed 4, 2012, initiated when DHS on June began than a few beers. Dani had consumed more testing to his a 72-hour hold on due regarding Dani’s argued attempt The two at the time illegal positive for substances got upset Dani while intoxicated. to drive Z.B. was on June 2012. his birth [aof public later arrested for and left and was family that in foster care with the placed disorderly Ap- conduct. intoxication half-sisters, and DHS his two adopted and moved relationship pellant ended to terminate immediately petition filed a friend, Gina, for several months in with a parental rights. moved to and Gina then thereafter. She Mr. they shared with place another hearing was held The first termination Beltran, mother’s appellant’s deceased 2012, after which the court September by appel- considered long-time boyfriend, finding petition, denied the At the time of figure. father lant to be a had, earli- three months since Z.B.’s birth hearing, she and Mr. Bel- NA/AA, the termination er, drug-free, remained attended anoth- one-year lease on signed tran had a sta- employment, maintained maintained share with- they planned to apartment er reg- on a relationship, and visited Z.B. ble that she had Appellant testified out Gina. granted appellant The court ular basis. continued, however, hearing in October 2013. regu- the termination have til Appellant with Z.B. un- unsupervised weekend visits lar at Bradford working Nursing House ter mother very much wanted to adopt for three months at the time Center of the Z.B.
hearing and had taken classes to become a Lunn, Melinda occupational thera- but had not taken the CNA CNA state pist, gave a explanation detailed of Z.B.’s exam nor obtained her GED. delays and of progress he had made in
Although reports testimony in- therapy. She testified that therapy was dicated that Z.B. suffered from develop- very important to his development and delays, mental for which he attended occu- acquire failure to the skills he needed pational week, several per times could have lifelong consequences. At the testified when called DHS conclusion of Ms. Lunn’s testimony, why that she had no idea Z.B. needed court took a five-minute recess. After the *4 therapy, recess, that she him did not take to ther- DHS Lunn, asked to recall Ms. apy when in he was her and that she which the court allowed over appellant’s on him taking objection. if In this additional testimony, custody were returned to her. Appellant Ms. Lunn described Z.B.’s condition after was later recalled when presenting her having come from appellant’s care to ther- case, testified, own after Z.B.’s therapist apy day on the before the hearing. She appeared to have experienced a clothing said his musty smelled dirty change regarding of heart therapy. Z.B.’s and that his diaper very full. She She told the court provide that she would described him being as “sticky” and his therapy if he needed it. Z.B. also suffers hair as “greasy” in back “crunchy” asthma, and, although appellant is top. smoker, she insisted that she did not Robinson, Brandon one of the DHS smoke around him. Appellant also testi- assigned caseworkers case, this testified born, fied that before Z.B. was she had a appellant’s support system, instability, drug problem” “serious and she admitted dependence upon housing others for that she never completed drug-treatment concerning. were He said that he thought program. She said that had attended 14she there high potential was a for harm if Z.B. meetings for several months after NA/AA to appellant because she ^returned Z.B. was born but that she had not attend- completed never a drug-treatment pro- ed since that time. She also testified that gram despite trying, had multiple partners get urges did drugs use and had during case, the course of the and demon- dreams about it but that kept work her poor strated judgment. He testified that Finally, mind off of it. appellant testified DHS’s recommendation was termination. might that she pregnant. be The court Another DHS employee, Michelle Cutrer- was concerned about this requested Boggess, was involved with appellant confirmation before it made its decision. previous cases and in this case. She continued, and at a hear- appellant’s was concerned about history of later, days several appellant’s counsel making questionable decisions and the con- notified the court that appellant was in fact sistent instability in her life. She was pregnant. particularly appellant, concerned that giv-
Z.B.’s foster mother addiction, testified that when en history admitted to Z.B. returned from visits appellant, drinking beers on her trip weekend float tired, he hungry, sick, was either dirty, or May Finally, caseworker, smelled of smoke. It was Saindon, also clear from Shannon testified that she was the evidence before concerned, the court that the given fos- appellant’s history order, In its the court found her addiction to treat failure
drugs and (1) grounds: convincing evidence two rehabilitation, out dependent-neglected and adjudicated concerned Ms. It also relapse. might for twelve of the changed had not Saindon months, effort despite meaningful friends. circle of and correct DHS to rehabilitate the recommended volunteer The CASA removal, that caused those the conditions it was in Z.B.’s best stating that adoption, remedied; and have not been conditions biological sisters be with his interest to arose subse- factors or issues other birth. She he had lived since the home original petition quent filing about that she was concerned testified also of Z.B. to that return that demonstrate meet- failure to attend appellant’s contrary to his custody is ings. that, health, despite safety, or welfare and services, family appropriate the offer of attorney ad from the quotes The dissent incapacity appellant has manifested in which the ad closing argument litem’s remedy subsequent is- indifference to whether that she is unsure litem states or rehabilitate the circum- sues or factors evidence there is clear Z.B. to her prevent return of stances quote repre- This termination. Ann. 9-27- custody. Ark.Code from the ad litem’s excerpt sents a small *5 341(b)(3)(B) spe- The court (Supp.2013). In her to the circuit court. statement the foster mother’s cifically found credible recognized litem argument, the ad and care of testimony about the condition and recommended this was a close case appellant. visits with during appellant additional give the court by evi- court found appeared main to be time. Her concern interest to dence that it was Z.B.’s best termination, caus- might that we reverse a parental rights. The terminate to Z.B. And while ing even more trauma at risk of court found that Z.B. would be to may helpful have been argument her ne- potential harm based on environmental court, not evidence and the circuit it was glect, specifically the cleanliness by the not bound the ad litem’s court was cigarette smoke child and the smell of than it was any recommendation more The court also appellant. visits with after by DHS’s. bound inadequate |7supervision. Finally, noted |fiAt hearing, the the the conclusion of eighteen listed additional the circuit court granting peti- that it was the court stated voluntary findings, including appellant’s expressed tion termination. The court termination of to two other children pregnant again. alarm that was her inability as a result of her to resolve credit Although the court did issues; her admission substance-abuse clean, concerned that staying with it was fight urges that she continued to the of urges the of addic- fight she continued to addiction; adequate support her lack of an a every day tion without the benefit of the help network to her address stresses addiction; group training drug- or from a her fail- parenting of her. program strengthen any drug-treatment pro- treatment complete ure to GED; prevented that this her her lack of follow- thought gram The court or obtain a he long-term stability, particular- with Z.B.’s when having care; having consumption another her of alcohol ly given the new stress of in her her during placement; trial home Basically, the court was concerned the child. father; by a different pregnancy behavior. appellant’s pattern of 371 Servs., Dep’t Ark. pattern of behavior Human 2014 repeated Ark. of 225, 6, 371, App. at court that had not resolved 434 375. S.W.3d because, substance-abuse issues while her The intent behind the termi testing positively drugs, she has “not nation-of-parental-rights statute is pro stopped thinking behaving in a not permanency vide in a child’s life when it is person consistent with a addicted manner possible to return the child to the ap- to substances.” The court found that family home it contrary because to the necessary lacked the to re- pellant tools health, welfare, child’s safety, and a main clean and believed added return home family cannot be ac stress, financial of parenting, having complished in period a reasonable of time cycle child another would cause of as viewed from child’s perspective. that relapse addiction continue and 9-27-341(a)(3) Ark.Code Ann. (Supp. that, likely. Finally, the court found 2013). Even full with the case of follow through lack “[c]ombined determinative; plan is not the issue is treatment, mother on her parent stable, whether the has become a during placement, use alcohol trial home safe able to care for his or her state of the child in Dep’t child. Ford v. Ark. present stress that be higher Servs., will 226, App. Ark. at ... way, another child on the Z.B.’s health Moreover, 381. a child’s need endangered if safety will be returned for permanency stability may override parent.” parent’s request for additional time to
improve parent’s circumstances. Dozi termination-of-paren We review er v. Ark. Dep’t Human tal-rights cases de novo. Dinkins v. Ark. 372 S.W.3d Finally, parent’s past behavior is often a *6 (2001). good 286 one indicator of statutory S.W.3d At least future behavior. Ste Servs., exist, v. Ark. Human phens Dep’t must to 2013 ground finding in addition a of 249, 8, App. 160, Ark. 427 at S.W.3d it in that is the child’s best interest to parental terminate these rights; must be For point appeal, her first by proved convincing clear and evidence. argues that the evidence was insufficient § (Supp.2013). Ark.Code Ann. 9-27-341 support to the order. A court’s circuit determination, making In a “best interest” may court terminate if it the trial court is to consider required two | convincing by finds clear and evidence |R(1) factors: the likelihood that the child child, it is in interest that the best adopted, potential will be of considering the likelihood that the child to the if is harm child returned to adopted potential bewill harm the parent. Dep’t a Smith v. Ark. Human child would suffer if returned par- of Servs., 753, 4, 2013 App. Ark. at 431 custody, at ent’s and that least one statuto- 364, inquiry 367. The appellate S.W.3d is ry ground for, termination exists. Ark. finding whether trial court’s that the (Supp.2013). Spe- Code Ann. 9-27-341 by disputed proved fact was clear and cifically, appellant appears challenge evidence erroneous. determination, is potential-harm court’s ar- v. Ark. Dep’t J.T. testimony that did guing not establish Ark. 947 S.W.2d she smoked around Z.B. because no Credibility determinations are left to the actually witnesses saw her do so and she fact-finder, here the court. not. She trial Henson v. testified that she did also chai- endanger way another child on the would testimony mother’s about the foster
lenges
safety
dirty
appellant’s
Z.B.’s health and
care.
smelling
being
of smoke
Z.B.
least
appel-
appeared
visits
The court
to have at
as
with
he returned
when
lack
much concern with
lant, claiming
the foster mother was
her failure
adopt
judgment
by
wanted
clearly biased because she
—demonstrated
Second,
complete
drug-treatment program,
at
argues
evidence
meetings,
maintain
grounds
any
be-
tend
not sufficient to
NA/AA
inability
other
her
to rec
support group;
the substance abuse.
cause she remedied
that,
ognize
developmental
in review orders entered
She states
—
needs;
January 2013,
pattern
pregnancy
her
2012 and
she was
in October
(instabil
dependence
housing
on others
compliance
to have
for
found
ity)-as
neglect.
plan
unsupervised
allowed
with her environmental
case
place-
weekend visitation after
trial
challenges support
also
Appellant
argues
ment ended. She
she never
termination,
con-
grounds
court’s
throughout
screen
the seven-
failed
compli-
tending that she was found to be
teen-month case.
ance
the case
and that she
with
re-
“clean” for the entire seventeen-
mained
appellant’s argu
We turn first to
month
While the court did find
period.
harm.
ment
Poten
concerning potential
compliance
to be in substantial
tial harm to
child is a factor to be
remaining
her for
commended
considered,
but
harm
specific
free,
not find
was in
it did
that she
full
proved by
not have to
identified or
does
be
fact,
plan.
case
it
evidence. Pine v.
great
not
concern
she was
attend-
meetings,
required,
as it had
App.
703. The potential-
completed
and that she had not
a drug-
analysis
harm
conducted in
is to be
broad
program.
particularly
It was
treatment
finding
terms.
Id. It is the “best interest”
lapses
concerned with these
given
ad-
by
that must be
clear
con
supported
urges
that she
struggled
mission
Moreover,
vincing
credibility
evidence. Id.
by her
caused
addiction and
added
determinations
for the circuit
are
court
to be
stress caused
another child
born.
make,
Smith,
not this court.
|nAppellant
at
specifically explain
431 S.W.3d
367. The
does
11flspecifically
why
found
ground
circuit court
the foster
the other-factors
was not
*7
met,
credible;
mother to be
she
circuit
testified that
but the
court made numerous
always
regarding
from visits
that
ap
findings
returned
events
occurred
tired,
sick,
pellant
dirty,
either
after
hungry,
or
Z.B. had been taken into
smelling
Finally,
significant
smoke.
the circuit
caused it concern. A
find-
potential
court’s determination of
harm in
take Z.B.
was
to
volved much
occupational therapy
more than its concern with
when he was
custody.
the smell of smoke or the fact that Z.B.
She testified at the
therapy
returned from
visits
The
she
he
dirty.
did not believe
needed
court
she
him if he
specifically found
combina
did not intend
take
follow-through by
tion of the lack
to her. While
ap-
returned
treatment,
mother on her
peared
change
her use of
mind about the im-
during
alcohol
placement,
portance
therapy during
trial home
of this
the course
state of the
in her
hearing,
child
the termination
her inaction
higher
present
stress that will be
with while
had Z.B.
her care was
noted
fact,
determinative;
the court in its order.
almost
case
plan is not
the issue is
findings
all of the court’s
related to occur- whether the parent
stable,
has become a
ap-
rences after Z.B. was removed from
safe
able to care for his or her
custody.
court
pellant’s
properly
Ford,
child.
2014 Ark. App.
at
considered the
harm to Z.B. if it
case,
S.W.3d at 381. In this
appellant did
appellant.
returned him to
And its find-
fully
not
comply with the case plan. Her
ing that other factors or issues arose sub-
addiction caused each of her three children
sequent
filing
original peti-
to be taken into DHS custody, and she
tion that demonstrated that return of Z.B.
admitted that she had never completed a
appellant’s custody
contrary
to his drug-treatment program, that she had at-
health, safety, or
welfare was not
tended
meetings
only
a few
erroneous.
born,
months after Z.B. was
and that she
pregnant
with another child at the
point
appeal,
For her second
time of the hearing. She also admitted to
appellant argues that the court erred when
continuing to
urges
have
to use drugs.
objection
it denied her
allowing
DHS to
The circuit
openly
court
struggled with its
occupational therapist,
recall Z.B.’s
Melin
decision and
many
credited
of appellant’s
recall,
da Lunn. On
Ms. Lunn testified
actions,
positive
but it was convinced that
about Z.B.’s having
come to
after
it was in Z.B.’s best interest to terminate
a visit with
ap
which Z.B.
her parental rights.
It
very
made
detailed
peared
musty
unclean and had a
smell.
findings supporting this decision in its or-
We note first that appellant has cited no
der, and we hold that its findings were not
authority
argument,
for her
and we will
clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm
develop
argument
research or
an
its decision.
has no citation to authority
legal argument. Henson v. Ark.
Affirmed.
Dep’t of
PITTMAN, WALMSLEY, and
Moreover,
374
(2005)
164,
(citing
205
778
Camar
seeking to
S.W.3d
upon
party
placed
burden
Servs.,
Human
Dep’t
v. Ark.
illo-Cox
v. Ark.
relationship. Cobbs
terminate
of
(2005);
340,
In an the order entered the attorney ad litem up summed the case as court rights terminated Schaible’s anyone as best could: (1) finding voluntarily to ZD after that she ZD was on placement trial rights previous terminated her two chil- [Schai- weeks, for (2) ble] about six not that issue; long drug-abuse dren based on a she ago. If enough time, she was fit at that ZD gave prenatal exposure birth to other than the episode with the float (3) marijuana; fight drug she continued to trip, what happened has since then to (4) addiction; comply she failed to with a make her I’m unfit? What is GED; drug-addiction program get or the question about therapies, repeated pattern and there was a smoking, and quote-unquote, bad behavior and convincingly it, choices.... comes When it down to resolved showed that she had not Honor, Your what I have to think about However, throughout issues. the case is clear evidence. Is be in compliance Schaible was found to there clear evidence? plan with the case and court orders. I’m not so sure about that. fact, the caseworker testified that she had Here, Schaible had seventeen months of all, most, “fulfilled if in things supervision but fail a drug did not screen. plan.” the case did so well that She granted placement She was in-home being went from tracked” for “fast termi- unsupervised weekend visitation. It is il- (no early nation provided services ter- logical that enough she can be fit to have mination —less than twelve months —of her child the weekend before the termi- services), having unsupervised visitation nation, but then the next week there be a and a trial She placement. home held a finding that the be in danger child would if home, vehicle, job, had a and a driver’s By returned to her. accounts all she com- license. participated She GED classes plied case continued to passed all screenings. of her meaningful make toward progress reunifi- placement The trial home ended after an such, cation. As I reverse this would case. (which trip incident on a float high The stakes are too when a fundamen- ZD), involve where Schaible was arrested right is The implicated. tal court was However, public intoxication. she con- And, holding past against Schaible. visitation, tinued to have unsupervised I do not disagree while foster- prior fact had ZD the weekend parent arguably situation was an better report termination. The court last stated child, environment irrele- go major “the visits well no con- to our State inquiry. vant The has no cerns have after presented vis- interest terminating of an 11Rthe its are done.” The mother presents foster testified otherwise fit who no ob- visits, well-being. that when ZD threat to the child’s was returned from his servable feet dirty and there was a smell of I would reverse and remand. clothing. smoke on his trial court HIXON, J„ joins.
found her to be and even credible referred to her as the mother.” “adoptive There
was testimony planned that she to name
the child upon adoption. “Hunter” Schai-
ble denied smoking around child and