Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 361
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CV-13-646
Opinion Delivered June 4, 2014
BILLIE JO CRUMP ADAMS
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
V. WESTERN DISTRICT
[NO. JV-2005-308]
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HONORABLE CINDY THYER,
HUMAN SERVICES and MINOR JUDGE
CHILDREN
APPELLEES AFFIRMED; MOTION TO BE
RELIEVED GRANTED
PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge
Appellant Billie Jo Crump Adams appeals the Craighead County Circuit Court’s order
terminating her parental rights to her two children, A.C. and M.C.1 Adams’s attorney has
filed a motion to be relieved from representation and a no-merit brief pursuant to Linker-
Flores v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004), and
Rule 6-9(i) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Adams was
sent a copy of her counsel’s motion and brief along with a letter informing her of her right
1
A.C.’s father, Jerry Crump, consented to the termination of his parental rights. M.C.’s
putative father, Roger Thorn, never entered an appearance in this case, and the circuit court,
upon finding that Thorn had abandoned M.C., terminated his parental rights as well. Neither
Crump nor Thorn is a party to this appeal.
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 361
to file pro se points for reversal, but she has not done so. We grant counsel’s motion to be
relieved and affirm the termination of Adams’s parental rights.
The Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition for emergency
custody of Adams’s children in November 2011 after A.C. discovered a supply of
methamphetamine and needles in the home of Adams’s then-husband, Jerry Crump. The
court subsequently adjudicated A.C. and M.C. dependent-neglected based on a finding that
the children had been “subjected to parental unfitness through the drug use of both parents,
and the alcohol abuse and failure to protect of the mother, [Adams].”
Throughout the pendency of the case, Adams continued to test positive for drugs and
consistently failed to comply with aspects of the case plan. DHS eventually filed a petition
for termination of parental rights, asserting, as statutory grounds, that the children had been
adjudicated dependent-neglected in January 2012 and had continued out of Adams’s custody
for twelve months and, despite meaningful effort by DHS to rehabilitate the parent and
correct the conditions which caused removal, those conditions had not been remedied by
the parent. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a) (Repl. 2009). In addition, DHS alleged
the “other factors” statutory ground in Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-
341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a) (Repl. 2009).
After a termination hearing, the court found that termination was in the best interest
of the children. In its written order, the court found that the girls’ grandparents wanted to
adopt the children; moreover, the court found that the girls were “young enough to be
adoptable on their own merits and have no physical, mental, or medical reason [that] would
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 361
prohibit an adoption.” As to potential harm, the court found that Adams had not sufficiently
dealt with her drug problems that had been the “heart of the reasons for the children being
brought into care.” The court also found that Adams had demonstrated an inability to
properly provide an adequate residence for the children; continued to have ongoing,
unresolved drug issues; and had additional mental-health issues. The court specifically
credited the DHS caseworker’s testimony about the potential for harm to the children if they
were returned to Adams’s custody.
The court further found clear and convincing evidence for the two statutory grounds
cited in DHS’s termination petition. Noting that the girls had been removed for more than
twelve months based on Adams’s drug use, alcohol abuse, and failure to protect the children,
the court found that Adams failed to complete her rehabilitation program and continued to
test positive for drugs. In addition, the court found that other factors had arisen subsequent
to the filing of the original petition for dependency-neglect that demonstrated that return of
the children to their parents’ custody was contrary to their best interest. Specifically, the
court determined that Adams had failed to maintain a stable residence since the case began,
had pled guilty to indecent exposure in an incident involving her father-in-law, had recently
applied for disability, and had failed to submit to a hair-follicle test. The court therefore
terminated Adams’s parental rights to A.C. and M.C. Adams filed a timely notice of appeal.
Counsel subsequently filed a motion to be relieved and a no-merit brief pursuant to Linker-
Flores, supra.
3
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 361
Counsel’s no-merit brief, accompanied by a motion to be relieved, includes a
discussion of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the termination order, as well as the
other adverse rulings in this case. Based on our examination of the record and the brief, we
find that counsel has complied with the requirements established by the Arkansas Supreme
Court for no-merit briefs in termination cases, and we hold that an appeal would be wholly
without merit. Consequently, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the order
terminating Adams’s parental rights.
Affirmed; motion to be relieved granted.
GRUBER and GLOVER , JJ., agree.
Dusti Standridge, for appellant.
No response.
4