Bryant v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

Citations: 383 S.W.3d 901; 2011 Ark. App. 390; 2011 Ark. App. LEXIS 402Docket: No. CA 11-62

Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; May 25, 2011; Arkansas; State Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Lori Bryant appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter, A.F., arguing that the decision was unjust since A.F. had achieved permanency with a relative. The Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) sought emergency custody after Bryant and A.F.'s father were arrested for drug-related charges, with evidence of drugs found near A.F. During the case, the initial goal was reunification, with court orders requiring Bryant to undergo drug screenings, complete treatment, maintain stable housing, and attend counseling. Although she completed in-patient treatment, Bryant struggled with compliance, failing to follow the aftercare plan, and not consistently attending visits with A.F. The circuit court later determined that returning A.F. to Bryant’s custody would be contrary to her welfare, shifting the goal to adoption and prompting DHS to file for termination of parental rights. During the termination hearing, DHS caseworker Dawn Fears testified that Bryant had not diligently pursued her treatment or maintained stable employment, raising concerns about her commitment to overcoming her drug issues. Despite having a year to demonstrate progress, Bryant failed to make significant changes, leading Fears to express uncertainty about the possibility of reunification. The court ultimately affirmed the termination decision.

DHS advocated for changing A.F.’s case goal to adoption, with A.F.'s aunt and uncle willing to adopt her. Testimony indicated that if the relatives' adoption did not succeed, other favorable adoption options existed. A.F.'s aunt, Angela Carter, emphasized her and her husband’s continuous physical custody of A.F. since she was four months old and expressed that A.F. should not return to her mother, Bryant, who had minimal visitation. Bryant testified about her living situation and part-time job but acknowledged her difficulties with drug treatment and the inadequacy of her income for supporting A.F. The court determined that A.F. had been in foster care for twelve months, found that the conditions leading to her removal had not been rectified, and considered Bryant's lack of transparency regarding drug testing. The court concluded that returning A.F. to her mother posed a risk of harm and granted the termination of parental rights, citing clear and convincing evidence of the need for termination, which aligns with Arkansas law emphasizing the child's best interest. The ruling highlighted the extreme nature of terminating parental rights but prioritized the child's health and well-being, affirming the trial court's credibility in evaluating the case.

Bryant contends the trial court improperly terminated her parental rights regarding her child, A.F., arguing that A.F. had achieved permanency with a relative, which should preclude such action under Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-338(c). This statute allows for termination of parental rights only if it is in the best interest of the child and not if the child is being cared for by a relative. Bryant claims that since A.F. was in the custody of her relative, Angela Carter, the court's decision was incorrect. However, the court notes that Bryant's argument is based on statutes relevant to the permanency-planning and fifteen-month review hearings, not the termination hearing itself. Additionally, Bryant failed to include the record of the permanency-planning hearing in her notice of appeal, which is critical for preserving her argument. The appellate court requires the appellant to present sufficient records to demonstrate error, and Bryant did not do so. Consequently, her argument is deemed unpreserved for appeal, leading to the affirmation of the trial court’s decision without addressing the argument's merits. A.F.'s father consented to the termination of his parental rights, and Bryant's other children were placed in their father's custody, which is not part of this appeal.