Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 284
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CV-13-1125
CLARISSA GRIFE Opinion Delivered May 7, 2014
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE CRAWFORD
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. JV-12-168]
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HONORABLE MICHAEL J.
HUMAN SERVICES and MINOR MEDLOCK, JUDGE
CHILD
APPELLEES AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
ROBIN F. WYNNE, Judge
Clarissa Grife appeals from the Crawford County Circuit Court’s order terminating
her parental rights to her child, S.M.1 Her attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel
that is accompanied by a brief filed pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-9 and Linker-
Flores v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004). We
affirm the termination order and grant the motion to withdraw.
In dependency-neglect cases, if, after studying the record and researching the law,
appellant’s counsel determines that the appellant has no meritorious basis for appeal, then
counsel may file a no-merit petition and move to withdraw. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(i)(1)
(2013). The petition must include an argument section listing all adverse rulings to the
appellant made by the circuit court on all objections, motions, and requests made by the party
1
The parental rights of the child’s father were also terminated. He is not a party to this
appeal.
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 284
at the hearing from which the appeal arose and explaining why each adverse ruling is not a
meritorious ground for reversal. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(i)(1)(A). The petition must also
include an abstract and addendum containing all rulings adverse to the appellant made at the
hearing from which the order on appeal arose. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(i)(1)(B). Appellant filed
pro se points for reversal.
After careful review of the brief and the record, we agree with counsel that there
would be no merit to an appeal from the termination order. The only ruling at the hearing
adverse to appellant was the circuit court’s decision to terminate her parental rights. In order
to terminate parental rights, the Arkansas Department of Human Services (the Department)
must prove at least one statutory ground for termination. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-
341(b)(3)(B) (Supp. 2013). The Department must also prove by clear and convincing
evidence that it is in the juvenile’s best interest to terminate parental rights, taking into
account the likelihood that the juvenile will be adopted and the potential for harm should the
juvenile be returned to the custody of the parent. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(A)(i) and
(ii) (Supp. 2013).
S.M. was taken into the Department’s custody in July 2012 due to drug use and
inadequate supervision by appellant. At the termination hearing, the Department presented
evidence that appellant continued to use drugs and refused in-patient drug treatment after
S.M.’s removal. Appellant also failed to maintain employment. During the case, appellant
was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment with an additional ten-year suspended imposition
of sentence. There was testimony from the caseworker that S.M. was adoptable. In the order
terminating appellant’s parental rights, the circuit court found that all three grounds pled
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 284
against appellant in the petition for termination had been proved by clear and convincing
evidence. The circuit court further found that it was in S.M.’s best interest to terminate
parental rights, considering the likelihood of adoption and the risk of potential harm were he
to be returned to appellant.
Based on the evidence presented at the termination hearing, a challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence to support at least one of the grounds pled in the petition would
be without merit. Likewise, a challenge to the circuit court’s finding that termination would
be in S.M.’s best interest, considering both the likelihood that he will be adopted and the
potential harm he would suffer were he to be returned to appellant, would be without merit.
Although appellant proposed relative placement in the place of termination of parental rights
at the termination hearing, she failed to appeal from the permanency-planning order that set
the goal of the case as termination of parental rights and adoption, thus waiving any argument
that the circuit court erred by not granting guardianship of S.M. to a relative. See Chafin v.
Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 496. In addition, there were no relatives, as of
the time of the hearing, who had been determined to be a proper placement for S.M., despite
his having been out of appellant’s custody for over twelve months.
Appellant’s pro se points consist mainly of recitations of the facts in the light most
favorable to her, complaints about the caseworker, whom she maintains was biased against
her, and professions that she has changed her lifestyle. The points do not raise any meritorious
issues for appeal.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
WHITEAKER and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.
Shannon Holloway, for appellant.
No response.
3