Tina Bowers Lee, Arkansas Public Defender Commission, Los Angeles, for
appellant., Andrew Firth, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee., Chrestman Group,
PLLC, by: Keith L. Chrestman, Jonesboro, attorney ad litem for minor child., On
July 14, 2016, the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition
for ex parte emergency custody and dependency-neglect as to L.S.2 In an affidavit,
family-service-worker specialist with DHS, Toni Hansberry, averred that DHS had
first become involved with McLemore's family in September 2015 based on a report
of maltreatment. An allegation of inadequate supervision and "substance misuse"
was substantiated against McLemore. A hair-follicle test performed on L.S. indicated
that she was positive for amphetamines, methamphetamine, and marijuana. McLemore
admitted having used methamphetamine, Xanax, and Klonopin the week before the investigation.
A protective-services case was opened, and DHS offered services, including worker
visits to the home, random drug screens, individual counseling, referrals for parenting
classes, a drug-and-alcohol assessment, and inpatient drug treatment., Hansberry
stated in her affidavit that McLemore had participated in individual counseling;
however, McLemore had failed to attend parenting classes, had not gone to any AA/NA
meetings, and had been unavailable for random drug screens on multiple occasions.
On April 27, 2016, Hansberry discovered that McLemore had been admitted to Recovery
Centers of Arkansas (RCA) and that L.S. had been living with her maternal grandfather.
The grandfather was instructed by DHS caseworkers not to permit McLemore to take
the child. On May 24, 2016, Hansberry went to visit the grandfather's home to check
on L.S. and learned that McLemore had been "kicked out" of rehab two weeks prior
and had come and taken L.S., Hansberry further averred that she had attempted to
contact McLemore to no avail in that McLemore had moved three times without informing
DHS of her whereabouts, had not returned phone calls, and had several warrants out
for her arrest. Hansberry thus sought the trial court's assistance in exercising
a hold on L.S. to ensure her safety, noting that McLemore's drug use and instability
put L.S. at substantial risk of harm. The petition alleged that L.S. was dependent-neglected
based on neglect and parental unfitness. L.S. was eventually located and removed
from McLemore's custody between July 25 and July 28, 2016., An ex parte order for
emergency custody was entered, and the trial court later found that probable cause
existed for issuance *733of the order based on McLemore's stipulation dated July
28, 2016. The stipulation provided that a protective-services case had been opened
based on a true finding of inadequate supervision and substance misuse; that L.S.
tested positive for drugs; that McLemore had been involuntarily discharged from
inpatient drug treatment; and that the caseworker had not been able to locate McLemore
to provide additional services., On August 24, 2016, L.S. was adjudicated dependent-neglected
due to parental unfitness based on a similar stipulation by McLemore, which was
attached to the order. McLemore stipulated that a hair-follicle drug screen on October
2, 2015, had revealed that L.S. was positive for methamphetamine and marijuana;
that a protective-services case had been opened but that McLemore had failed to
participate in services and failed to cooperate with DHS; and that McLemore had
tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamines, and methylenedioxymethamphetamine
(MDMA or "ecstasy") on August 5, 2016. Another exhibit attached to the adjudication
order was a lab follow-up from the results of L.S.'s October 2, 2015 drug screen.
It was noted that the confirmation amount of methamphetamine was more than 360 times
over the minimum amount needed to confirm the presence of methamphetamine-"so it
was not a subtle exposure"-and that the marijuana level was eighteen times over
the minimum cutoff level for confirmation testing., In the adjudication order, McLemore
was ordered to visit L.S. and to cooperate with DHS. She was also ordered to, among
other things, submit to a drug-and-alcohol assessment; enter a residential-treatment
program for substance abuse, complete the program, and follow any recommendations;
submit to random drug screens; and attend AA/NA meetings at least three times a
week., On February 2, 2017, DHS filed a petition for termination of parental rights,
alleging three grounds under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B) (Supp. 2017). After
a continuation for good cause, a termination hearing was held on April 27 and May
8, 2017., Toni Hansberry testified that L.S. had been removed from McLemore's custody
*734on July 26, 2016, because DHS had an open case on the family and had not been
successful in providing services to McLemore. Hansberry admitted that a case plan
had not yet been approved in the protective-services case but asserted that McLemore
had known that she was required to enter inpatient drug treatment because McLemore
and both children in her custody when she had tested positive for drugs. Hansberry
said that, despite having tested positive for drugs, the children were nevertheless
allowed to stay in McLemore's care. Hansberry explained that she had not been involved
in that decision., Hansberry stated she did not think that continuing to offer services
to McLemore would result in reunification because DHS had offered her "an abundance
of services" to keep the child from being placed in foster care, yet those services
did not prevent L.S.'s removal from the home. She stated that McLemore had been
arrested at L.S.'s adjudication hearing on outstanding warrants and had been incarcerated
throughout the case. A sentencing order was introduced showing that McLemore's
probation had been revoked and that she had been sentenced to two years' imprisonment
for possession of drugs and paraphernalia. Hansberry testified that before McLemore's
incarceration, McLemore had begun by being "a little cooperative" but then had "kind
of slacked off.", Hansberry testified that McLemore had visited with L.S. and that
she was aware that McLemore had been participating in services offered by the prison
system. She stated that she had been unable to determine what those services were
and whether McLemore had completed the services. Hansberry testified that L.S. could
not be returned to McLemore's custody that day because McLemore was still in prison.
She stated that, although she had been provided with an address where McLemore planned
to live once she is released from prison, the home had not yet been studied. Hansberry
testified that she had attempted to find a permanent custodian for L.S., including
a fit and willing relative. She said that she had mailed notices to caregivers for
L.S.'s siblings and that McLemore had provided her with a list of names. Hansberry
said that she had mailed notices to those persons on the list that she could find
addresses for but had not heard back, that McLemore's sister had declined to get
involved, and that she could not find contact information for others on the list.,
Hansberry stated that there was not enough time for McLemore-assuming she would
be released from prison in June-to demonstrate that she could obtain a safe and
stable home, secure employment, and maintain sobriety. Hansberry stated that it
was unreasonable to expect L.S. to wait another three months to see whether McLemore
could "stabilize" because L.S. had not contributed to her mother's drug use, and
before L.S. had entered DHS's custody, McLemore "had lots of time to get herself
clean and be stable and parent her child, and that didn't occur." Hansberry said
that L.S. had been waiting on McLemore to become stable for 591 days of the 618
days she had been alive., Darnisha Chatman testified that she is McLemore's substance-abuse
advisor at the Arkansas Department of Community Correction. She said that McLemore
has group counseling for three to four hours a day and individual sessions every
thirty days. Chatman stated that, whereas McLemore had been reserved in the beginning,
she now participates and "seems to have gained enough knowledge to deal with her
issues that she was having before." She said that McLemore had given birth to C.M.
in December 2016 and that DHS had taken custody of him at that time. She said that
McLemore had been devastated by *735C.M.'s removal and had begun doing extra work
in February 2017., Tiffany McLemore testified that she is currently incarcerated
and that June 30, 2017, was her expected release date. She said that she had had
no disciplinary problems while in prison and that she had been sober since August
23, 2016. She said that there are substance-abuse programs available at the prison
and that she was on step 4 of a twelve-step program. She stated that she cannot
get an AA sponsor until she is released. McLemore testified that she had completed
parenting classes and obtained her GED. She said that she had a plan in place for
her transition "back into the world." She said that she plans to stay with her great-aunt
and great-uncle and that she had secured a temporary job detailing cars. She also
said that she plans to stay away from people who do drugs and places where drugs
are present. McLemore asked that she be given more time to reunify with L.S., On
cross-examination, McLemore testified that she had been incarcerated due to her
drug use and that L.S. had been placed in foster care due to her drug use. McLemore
stated that DHS had worked with her for at least seven or eight months during the
protective-services case and that, while she had felt that it was important to stop
using drugs while L.S. was still in her custody, she did not feel a sense of urgency
in participating in the current case plan. She stated, "I really didn't think [doing
drugs] affected [the children] because I took very well care of my children." She
also said, "I thought I was a good parent. I do not really think I was impaired
when I was on drugs.", The trial court granted DHS's petition, finding all three
grounds as alleged in DHS's petition: Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a)
(other factors or issues arose subsequent to the filing of the original petition
for dependency-neglect that demonstrate that the placement of the juvenile in the
custody of the parent is contrary to the juvenile's health, safety, or welfare
and that, despite the offer of appropriate family services, the parent has manifested
the incapacity or indifference to remedy those issues or rehabilitate the parent's
circumstances, which prevent the placement of the juvenile in the custody of the
parent); Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(viii) (the parent is sentenced in a
criminal proceeding for a period of time that would constitute a substantial period
of the juvenile's life); and Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(ix)(a)(3)(A) &
(B) ( "aggravated circumstances" means, among other things, that a determination
has been made by a judge that there is little likelihood that services to the family
will result in successful reunification). The trial court also considered the potential
harm that could result in returning custody of L.S. to McLemore and noted that L.S.
is "very adoptable.", *736Williams v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. , 2013 Ark. App.
622, 2013 WL 5872757. Grounds for termination of parental rights must be proved
by clear and convincing evidence, which is that degree of proof that will produce
in the finder of fact a firm conviction of the allegation sought to be established.
Id. The appellate inquiry is whether the trial court's finding that the disputed
fact was proved by clear and convincing evidence is clearly erroneous. Id. A finding
is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing
court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been made. Id. In resolving the clearly erroneous question, we give
due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of witnesses.
Camarillo-Cox v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. , 360 Ark. 340, 201 S.W.3d 391 (2005).
On appellate review, this court gives a high degree of deference to the trial court,
which is in a far superior position to observe the parties before it. Id. Termination
of parental rights is an extreme remedy and in derogation of the natural rights
of parents, but parental rights will not be enforced to the detriment or destruction
of the health and well-being of the child. Friend v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
, 2009 Ark. App. 606, 344 S.W.3d 670., The purpose of the termination-of-parental-rights
statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(a)(3), is to provide permanency in a juvenile's
life in all instances in which the return of a juvenile to the family home is contrary
to the juvenile's health, safety, or welfare, and it appears from the evidence
that a return to the family home cannot be accomplished in a reasonable period of
time, as viewed from the juvenile's perspective. Even full compliance with the
case plan is not determinative; the issue is whether the parent has become a stable,
safe parent able to care for his or her child. Shaffer v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
, 2016 Ark. App. 208, 489 S.W.3d 182. In deciding whether to terminate the parental
rights of a parent, the trial court has a duty to look at the entire picture of
how that parent has discharged his or her duties as a parent. Friend, supra., A.
Grounds for Termination, Proof of only one statutory ground is sufficient to terminate
parental rights. Sharks v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. , 2016 Ark. App. 435, 502
S.W.3d 569. Although DHS and the attorney ad litem examined only the substantial-sentence
ground in their briefs, we affirm the termination of parental rights on the aggravated-circumstances
ground. We note that at the termination hearing, counsel for McLemore objected to
any mention of the protective-services case as part of proving the aggravated-circumstances
ground on the basis that it was irrelevant because reunification did not become
the goal until after entry of the adjudication order. The trial court disagreed,
saying that "you have to look at the whole picture" and that, while DHS could have
pled the ground better, discussion of the services offered in the protective-services
case was "fair game" and "has to come in" because it was part of the basis for the
trial court's adjudication of L.S. as dependent-neglected.