Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 76
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CV-13-886
Opinion Delivered January 29, 2014
CHRYSTAL CASTILLO-CHAVEZ APPEAL FROM THE JOHNSON
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[No. JV-2012-34]
V.
HONORABLE KEN D. COKER, JR.,
JUDGE
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
SERVICES and MINOR CHILDREN AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW
APPELLEES GRANTED
LARRY D. VAUGHT, Judge
This is a no-merit appeal from an order terminating Chrystal Castillo-Chavez’s parental
rights to her children, DH (dob June 10, 1997), HH (dob August 30, 1998), and IH (dob May
12, 2001).1 Chavez’s appellate counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw under Linker-
Flores v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004), and Ark.
Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(i) (2013). Chavez was provided a copy of her counsel’s brief and motion, and she
was given an opportunity to file pro se points but has declined to do so. Neither the Arkansas
Department of Human Services (DHS) nor the attorney ad litem filed a responsive brief. We
affirm and grant counsel’s motion.
1
The trial court also terminated the parental rights of HH and IH’s putative father, Juan
Castillo-Chavez. (The father of DH is unknown.) Juan did not appear at the termination hearing
and has not appealed the order terminating his parental rights.
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 76
DH, HH, and IH came into DHS custody on March 2, 2012, based on allegations of
inadequate shelter and Chavez’s drug use. An adjudication order, entered May 16, 2012, found
the children dependent-neglected based on those allegations and ordered Chavez to submit to
random drug screens, complete parenting classes, obtain and maintain stable and appropriate
housing and employment, and submit to and successfully complete outpatient drug treatment.
Additionally, Chavez was permitted to visit the children contingent on negative drug screens.
The order further reflected that DHS made referrals to Chavez for a drug and alcohol
assessment, which led to referrals for outpatient and inpatient drug treatment. It was noted in
the adjudication order that DHS also made referrals for counseling, conducted random drug
screens and a hair-follicle test, and offered parenting classes.
In April 2013, DHS petitioned to terminate Chavez’s parental rights, alleging that it was
in the best interest of the juveniles, including consideration of the likelihood that they would be
adopted if the termination petition was granted and the potential harm caused by returning the
children to the custody of the parent. DHS further alleged that grounds as set forth in Ark. Code
Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a)2 and (vii)(a)3 (Supp. 2013) supported the termination.
2
The ground set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a) provides that a
juvenile has been adjudicated by the court to be dependent-neglected and has continued to be
out of the custody of the parent for twelve months and, despite a meaningful effort by the
department to rehabilitate the parent and correct the conditions that caused removal, those
conditions have not been remedied by the parent.
3
The ground set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a) provides that other
factors or issues arose subsequent to the filing of the original petition for dependency-neglect
that demonstrate that placement of the juvenile in the custody of the parent is contrary to the
juvenile’s health, safety, or welfare and that, despite the offer of appropriate family services, the
parent has manifested the incapacity or indifference to remedy the subsequent issues or factors
or rehabilitate the parent’s circumstances that prevent the placement of the juvenile in the
custody of the parent.
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 76
At the July 9, 2013 termination hearing, Chavez’s caseworker testified that DHS was
recommending termination of Chavez’s parental rights. Specifically, the caseworker said that
Chavez attended the intake for counseling, but she did not complete the scheduled sessions; she
completed parenting classes; she did not attend outpatient drug treatment; and she completed
inpatient drug treatment. The caseworker said that while Chavez completed the inpatient drug
treatment and started a voluntary follow-up drug-free program, she discontinued it within a few
days. The caseworker testified that in four posttreatment drug screens (one just a couple of
weeks before the termination hearing), Chavez tested positive for methamphetamine. A hair-
follicle test was also positive for methamphetamine. Chavez’s caseworker said that Chavez lived
in seven different places during the case, she spent seventy-seven days in jail, and visited her
children only thirteen times despite seventy-one opportunities. The caseworker told the trial
court that the children were adoptable, there were no impediments to adoption, and that DHS
had identified families interested in two of the children. Based on this evidence, the trial court
granted DHS’s petition to terminate Chavez’s parental rights to DH, HH, and IH, finding that
DHS had proved by clear and convincing evidence both grounds alleged in the petition. This
no-merit appeal followed.
In compliance with Linker-Flores, and Rule 6-9(i), Chavez’s counsel ordered the entire
record and examined it for adverse rulings. Counsel listed the two adverse rulings in this
case—the trial court’s denial of Chavez’s motion for a continuance and the decision to terminate
Chavez’s parental rights—and has adequately discussed why there is no arguable merit to an
appeal of these rulings. After carefully examining the record and the no-merit brief, we hold that
3
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 76
Chavez’s counsel has complied with the requirements for a no-merit parental-rights-termination
appeal and that the appeal is wholly without merit. We therefore affirm the termination of
Chavez’s parental rights to DH, HH, and IH by memorandum opinion, In re Memorandum
Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985), and grant the motion to withdraw.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
GRUBER and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.
Deborah R. Sallings, Arkansas Public Defender Commission, for appellant.
No response.
4