Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 120
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CV-16-1005
Opinion Delivered March 1, 2017
TERRY MEREDITH APPEAL FROM THE VAN BUREN
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 71JV-15-10]
V.
HONORABLE TROY B.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF BRASWELL, JR., JUDGE
HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR
CHILD AFFIRMED
APPELLEES
BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge
Terry Meredith appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, J.M. 1 She
argues that the termination was not in her child’s best interest. We affirm the circuit court’s
decision.
I.
In April 2015, the Van Buren County Circuit Court adjudicated J.M. dependent
neglected by the parties’ stipulation. Five-month-old J.M. remained in foster care, and the
case goal remained reunification with Terry. The circuit court held a permanency-planning
hearing in February 2016 and found that the Arkansas Department of Human Services
(DHS) had offered reunification services throughout the case. Those services included:
foster home, board payments, relative home study, home visits, supervised visitation,
1
Terry has other children, but they are not involved in this appeal.
1
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 120
transportation, referral for counseling, drug-and-alcohol assessment, drug treatment,
psychological evaluation, housing assistance, NA/AA referral, parenting classes, paternity
testing, case management, medical services, dental services, and foster home visits. The
court changed the case-plan goal to adoption after finding that Terry was speaking “very
quickly and incoherently” when she testified during the permanency-planning hearing, and
a drug test given at court that day was positive for amphetamines, methamphetamine, and
MDMA. Terry had failed to comply with the court’s previous orders to attend inpatient
drug rehabilitation, to maintain contact with DHS, and to complete parenting classes. Terry
also attended only nine visits with J.M. in the eleven months that the case had been opened.
In March 2016 DHS filed a petition to terminate Terry’s parental rights.
The court held a hearing on the petition in June 2016, during which DHS
introduced the prior orders entered in the case, two case plans, and Terry’s drug screens.
The evidence showed that, while Terry had some periods of sobriety, there were many
periods where she was not. Terry testified that part of the delay in entering and completing
drug rehabilitation was finding an appropriate facility that could treat both the substance
abuse and her mental health. Following the permanency-planning hearing, Terry
completed a drug-rehabilitation program and had achieved over sixty days of sobriety when
the termination hearing was held. She also began consistently visiting J.M. after her release
from the inpatient program. Terry started working at Taco Bell about three weeks before
the termination hearing, received Social-Security disability benefits, had a home, and had a
fiancé who assisted her with bills.
2
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 120
Caseworker Jennifer Carroll testified that Terry had been arrested and charged with
drug-related offenses and had tested positive for methamphetamine throughout the case. In
Carroll’s opinion, there was little likelihood that giving Terry three more months would
result in a successful reunification with J.M. She testified that Terry had not maintained
stable or appropriate housing and that Terry had not demonstrated an improved ability to
parent or keep J.M. safe. Carroll said that J.M.’s foster parents would like to adopt him,
that J.M. does not have any physical or mental deficiencies preventing him from being
adopted, and that he was in an appropriate placement.
J.M.’s foster parent testified that J.M. was “absolutely” part of the family and that he
was “committed” to adopting him.
The circuit court terminated Terry’s parental rights to J.M. in August 2016. Terry
has appealed that order.
II.
We review termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo. Cheney v. Ark. Dep’t of
Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 209, 396 S.W.3d 272. But we will not reverse the circuit
court’s ruling unless its findings are clearly erroneous. Id. A finding is clearly erroneous
when, although there is evidence to support it, we are left with a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. In determining whether a finding is clearly
erroneous, we give due deference to the opportunity of the circuit court to assess the
witnesses’ credibility. Id.
A circuit court’s order that terminates parental rights must be based on clear and
convincing evidence. Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286
3
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 120
(2001). Clear and convincing evidence is that degree of proof that will produce in the fact-
finder a firm conviction that the allegation has been established. Pratt v. Ark. Dep’t of Human
Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 399, 413 S.W.3d 261. Proof of only one statutory ground is sufficient
to terminate parental rights. Gossett v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 240, 374
S.W.3d 205. A circuit court must find by clear and convincing evidence that termination
is in the best interest of the juvenile, taking into consideration (1) the likelihood that the
juvenile will be adopted if the termination petition is granted and (2) the potential harm,
specifically addressing the effect on the health and safety of the child, caused by returning
the child to the custody of the parent. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(A)(i)–(ii).
As we said earlier, Terry challenges only the circuit court’s best-interest
determination. She argues that the progress she made “was worth putting off the
termination decision” for a few weeks and asks us to reverse so “the circuit court [may] fully
consider Terry’s progress at abstaining from drugs.” In her view, the evidence did not
sufficiently establish that she continued to pose a risk of harm to J.M. because she is now
sober. Terry does not contest that J.M. is adoptable.
In this case, the circuit court found that J.M. would be at a substantial risk of serious
harm if he were returned to Terry because of her “drug use and instability.”
Terry has a very serious drug problem that has persisted throughout
the case. Terry was visibly impaired and tested for meth at her permanency
planning hearing. Terry never obtained housing, and spent most of her time
drifting from one place to another while her child remained in foster care.
[J.M.] would be at risk of neglect that would endanger his health and safety if
returned to his mother.
The circuit court must consider a parent’s compliance during the entire dependency-
neglect case and the evidence presented at the termination hearing in deciding whether
4
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 120
termination is in the child’s best interest. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(a)(4)(B). Here, the
circuit court was permitted to weigh Terry’s progress toward sobriety—which occurred
after the permanency-planning hearing—against the long periods of instability and drug use
during the case’s course. The court could have given Terry more time, but it chose not to.
We defer to the circuit court’s assessment of the potential harm J.M. faced if returned to his
mother’s custody. On the whole, we hold that the court’s best-interest determination was
not clearly erroneous and affirm the termination of Terry’s parental rights.
Affirmed.
HIXSON and BROWN, JJ., agree.
Tabitha McNulty, Arkansas Public Defender Commission, for appellant.
Andrew Firth, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.
Chrestman Group, PLLC, by: Keith L. Chrestman, attorney ad litem for minor
children.
5