Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 208
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CV-14-1055
Opinion Delivered April 1, 2015
JAMES COOPER
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE JACKSON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. JV-2013-64]
HONORABLE KEVIN KING, JUDGE
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
APPELLEE WITHDRAW GRANTED
M. MICHAEL KINARD, Judge
This is an appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of appellant, James
Cooper, to his seven-year-old son, D.C. Appellant’s attorney has filed a motion to be
relieved as counsel 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 Arkansas Supreme Court Rule
6-9(i), asserting that there are no issues of arguable merit to support the appeal. Counsel’s
brief contains an abstract and addendum of the proceedings below, details all adverse rulings
made at the termination hearing, and explains why there is no meritorious ground for
reversal. The clerk of this court sent copies of the brief and motion to be relieved to
appellant, informing him that he had the right to file pro se points for reversal under Rule
6-9(i)(3). Appellant filed a statement of points. The Arkansas Department of Human
Services (DHS) then filed a response to appellant’s pro se points.
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 208
The record shows that D.C. first came into the custody of DHS in April 2013 after
it was discovered that appellant was using methamphetamine and that the then six-year-old
child was often left at home alone. Over the next sixteen months, services were offered by
DHS, but appellant only partially complied with the case plan. Appellant did not maintain
stable employment. He did not attend drug rehabilitation, did not complete outpatient drug
counseling, and continued to use illegal drugs; he failed eighteen drug screens, testing
positive for drugs ranging from methamphetamine to opiates. Appellant also missed sixty-
one of seventy-two scheduled visits with D.C. After the hearing, the trial court found by
clear and convincing evidence that termination was in D.C.’s best interest. The court further
found multiple statutory grounds for termination, including that D.C. had been adjudicated
dependent-neglected and had remained outside the home for more than twelve months, and
that, despite meaningful efforts by DHS to rehabilitate appellant, appellant had failed to
remedy the conditions that caused the child’s removal. See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-
341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a) (Supp. 2013).
Based on our review of the record and the briefs presented to us, we conclude that
counsel has complied with the requirements set by the Arkansas Supreme Court for no-merit
petitions in termination cases, and we hold that the appeal is wholly without merit.1
1
Appellant’s pro se points raise no issues of arguable merit; they all involve issues that
either are adequately covered in his attorney’s brief or are not preserved for appeal. To the
extent that he relies upon his alleged improvements since the termination order, we note that
post-termination progress is not a ground for reversal of an order terminating one’s parental
rights. See Weaver v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2012 Ark. App. 437.
2
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 208
Consequently, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the order terminating
appellant’s parental rights.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
ABRAMSON and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.
Suzanne Ritter Lumpkin, Arkansas Public Defender Commission, Dependency-Neglect
Appellate Division, for appellant.
Tabitha Baertels McNulty, Office of Policy and Legal Services, for appellee.
Chrestman Group, PLLC, by: Keith Chrestman, attorney ad litem for minor child.
3