Fuller v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
Fuller v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
Opinion
Cite as
2014 Ark. App. 9ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-13-621
JACKIE FULLER Opinion Delivered January 8, 2014 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT [NO. JV-2004-483] ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR HONORABLE MARK HEWETT, CHILDREN JUDGE
APPELLEES AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge
Appellant Jackie Fuller appeals the Sebastian County Circuit Court order terminating
her parental rights to her three children, D.S., L.W., and B.M.1 Her attorney 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, asserting that there are no issues
of arguable merit to support the appeal. Fuller was sent a copy of her counsel’s motion and
brief, along with a letter informing her of her right to file pro se points for reversal. She has
1 The court also terminated the parental rights of the children’s father, Timothy Martin, but he is not a party to this appeal. Cite as
2014 Ark. App. 9filed pro se points for the court’s consideration. We affirm and grant counsel’s motion to be
relieved.
The Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition for emergency
custody of Fuller’s children after Fuller was arrested and charged with possession of
methamphetamine with intent to deliver, possession of marijuana, endangering the welfare
of a minor, and several traffic offenses. The court subsequently adjudicated the children
dependent-neglected. The adjudication order noted that, in addition to Fuller’s criminal
history, she had a history of drug abuse and had pending felony charges with the possibility
of a substantial term of incarceration.
DHS filed a petition for termination of parental rights. As statutory grounds for
termination, DHS alleged that Fuller had been sentenced in a criminal proceeding for a
period of time that would constitute a substantial period of the children’s lives.
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(viii) (Repl. 2009). DHS also alleged that Fuller had subjected the
children to aggravated circumstances in that there was little likelihood that services to the
family would result in successful reunification.
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-
341(b)(3)(B)(ix)(a)(3)(B)(i) (Repl. 2009).2
The circuit court terminated Fuller’s parental rights, finding that she had been
convicted of drug-related charges and sentenced to two ten-year terms of incarceration. The
court found that this satisfied the grounds for termination in § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(viii). In
2 DHS also alleged two other grounds for termination, but the circuit court did not base its termination order on either of these two statutory grounds. We therefore find it unnecessary to discuss them.
2 Cite as
2014 Ark. App. 9addition, the court found that it was in the best interest of the children to terminate Fuller’s
parental rights, specifically finding that it had considered the adoptability of the children and
the risk of harm to them if there were to be continued contact with the parent.
Fuller submitted a letter to this court in which she argues that she should not have her
parental rights terminated. The only matter raised in her pro se points that could arguably be
considered an appealable issue is her contention that she received ineffective assistance of
counsel from both her trial attorney and her appellate attorney. These claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel were never raised before the trial court. Arkansas appellate courts will
not consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as a point on appeal unless it was first
raised in the trial court. Jones v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs.,
361 Ark. 164,
205 S.W.3d 778(2005); Weaver v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs.,
2011 Ark. App. 680. Accordingly, Fuller’s pro
se points are without merit.
Counsel’s no-merit brief, accompanied by a motion to withdraw, 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 briefs, we find
that counsel has complied with the requirements established by the Arkansas Supreme Court
for no-merit appeals 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 Fuller’s parental rights.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted. GLADWIN , C.J., and PITTMAN , J., agree. Leah Lanford, Arkansas Public Defender Commission, for appellant. No response.
3
Reference
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published