Calahan v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

Citations: 2013 Ark. App. 508; 429 S.W.3d 372; 2013 WL 5272725; 2013 Ark. App. LEXIS 513Docket: CV-13-256

Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; September 18, 2013; Arkansas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jeremiah Calahan's parental rights to his daughter, L.J.C., were terminated by a court order on December 26, 2012. This decision followed a series of events that began in February 2010 when the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) sought emergency custody due to serious concerns over child safety. These concerns were rooted in the death of L.J.C.'s sister, L.C., from non-accidental injuries, and severe injuries to Calahan’s stepson, L.D., while under Calahan's care. The injuries included healed burn marks and blunt-force trauma, which Calahan attributed to self-infliction.

Following the emergency custody grant, L.J.C. was adjudicated dependent/neglected in April 2010. By February 2011, the trial court determined that reunification was unlikely due to aggravated circumstances, and a petition to terminate parental rights was filed in April 2011. At the termination hearing in September 2012, the court found sufficient grounds for termination under several Arkansas statutes, including that L.J.C. had been out of the parent's custody for over twelve months without remedy of the conditions leading to her removal, and that Calahan had subjected her to aggravated circumstances.

DHS's case was supported by testimony from a child protective-services investigator, who confirmed involvement in multiple investigations concerning Calahan, indicating a pattern of neglect and abuse. The court ultimately ruled that termination of parental rights was in the best interest of L.J.C. Calahan's attorney filed a no-merit brief, stating no appealable issues were present, and Calahan was notified of his right to file pro se points of appeal, which he did, while DHS did not respond. The court affirmed the termination of parental rights and granted the attorney's motion to be relieved.

Wall made findings against Calahan for internal injuries, physical abuse, neglect, and inadequate supervision related to L.D.'s injuries, noting that since L.D. entered foster care, he had not suffered significant injuries. While the investigation into L.D. was ongoing, Wall received a referral in May 2009 concerning Calahan's daughter, L.C., leading her to petition for emergency removal of L.D. and protection for L.C., both of which were granted. Wall confirmed that her findings had not been appealed and that L.D. remained in custody, though L.C. suffered severe injuries (subdural hemorrhaging and a skull fracture) and died in May 2009. Calahan denied knowledge of L.C.'s injuries and claimed neither he nor his wife harmed her. In 2011, Julie Calahan was charged and pleaded guilty to L.C.’s murder, while Jeremiah Calahan was not charged, and there was no evidence linking him to L.D.'s injuries.

Testimony from Annette Scott of Arkansas DHS indicated that the Calahans failed to comply with case plans, and no relatives sought placement for L.J.C., who was deemed adoptable. Jeremiah testified he remained married to Julie and attributed L.D.'s injuries to self-infliction. He mentioned arrangements made for L.C.’s care after L.D. was removed, which coincided with L.C.'s fatal injuries. Nicole Hampton, L.J.C.'s foster mother, expressed interest in adopting L.J.C. 

In reference to the standard of review for terminating parental rights, it is established that such orders must be based on clear and convincing evidence, defined as proof that instills a firm conviction in the fact-finder. On appeal, the focus is on whether the trial court's findings were clearly erroneous, with a high degree of deference given to the trial court's assessment of credibility. For termination, the court must determine that it is in the child's best interest, considering the likelihood of adoption and potential harm from returning the child to parental custody.

The trial court determined that clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of parental rights for L.J.C. due to severe abuse suffered by her siblings while in the care of Jeremiah and Julie Calahan, including the fatal injury of L.C. and serious injury to L.D. The court found that returning L.J.C. to the Calahans' custody would not be in her best interest, especially given the severe harm already inflicted on the other children. The trial court concluded that L.J.C.'s life could be endangered based on evidence of L.D.'s injuries caused by Jeremiah Calahan, fulfilling one of the statutory grounds required for termination. 

The Calahans appealed the adjudication order but did not contest the evidence supporting the finding of dependency/neglect. Several adverse evidentiary rulings occurred during the termination hearing, including a rejected hearsay objection regarding a physician's testimony about L.D.’s injuries and a dispute over the relevance of further injuries L.D. sustained post-removal. The court deemed the latter relevant for assessing L.J.C.'s safety if returned home. The trial court also allowed DHS to reference a psychological evaluation of Jeremiah Calahan, who was diagnosed with narcissism, but limited the questioning on the specifics of the evaluation. An inquiry into whether L.D. accused Jeremiah of physical harm was also posed. Overall, the rulings did not undermine the evidence supporting the termination of parental rights.

Calahan's counsel raised a hearsay objection, which the trial court upheld, stating that the question had already been answered. Calahan stated that L.D. would hit himself, with others witnessing the act. DHS again objected on hearsay grounds, which was sustained. Calahan later testified that L.D. was observed hitting himself at the hospital, but DHS moved to strike this testimony, and the trial court granted that motion. It remained unclear whether Calahan’s statements about others witnessing L.D. were based on hearsay or direct observation. Even if the testimony had not been hearsay, it was deemed non-prejudicial since the trial court had already found Calahan responsible for L.D.'s injuries, a finding that was not appealed.

Calahan expressed uncertainty about the timing of L.C.'s injury and the subsequent hospital visit. His counsel objected to further questioning about L.C. due to prior testimony about Calahan's wife pleading guilty to L.C.'s death and the absence of charges against Calahan. DHS contended that the inquiry was relevant to Calahan's reactions upon learning of L.C.'s injuries, and the court permitted this line of questioning. Calahan's testimony reflected concern for L.C., which was not harmful.

An objection was also raised when Calahan mentioned L.D.'s diagnoses of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and bipolar disorder, which the court sustained. However, after rephrasing, Calahan was allowed to testify about L.D.'s medications related to these conditions, thus admitting the diagnoses into evidence.

Calahan claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that his attorney believed in his guilt and failed to defend him. This argument was not presented to the trial court and could not be raised on appeal, as Arkansas appellate courts require such claims to be addressed at the trial level. The appellate review concluded that Calahan's counsel met the standards for no-merit appeals in termination cases, and thus, the appeal was deemed without merit. The order terminating Calahan’s parental rights was affirmed, and the motion to withdraw by his counsel was granted.