Cite as

Digitally signed by Elizabeth ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Perry DIVISION IV Date: 2022.08.03 13:32:03 No. CV-19-476 -05'00' Adobe Acrobat version: 2022.001.20169 Opinion Delivered: October 2, 2019

LISA WHITEHEAD APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, V. TENTH DIVISION [NO. 60JV-17-879] ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR HONORABLE JOYCE WILLIAMS CHILDREN WARREN, JUDGE APPELLEES AFFIRMED

MIKE MURPHY, Judge

Lisa Whitehead appeals the Pulaski County Circuit Court’s order terminating her

parental rights to her two children. On appeal, she argues that the termination of her parental

rights was not in her children’s best interest. We affirm.

At the time of the termination, one child was sixteen and the other was thirteen. On

appeal, the crux of Lisa’s argument is that termination was not in the children’s best interest

because they did not want to be adopted and wanted to remain together.

The Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) became involved with this

family in June 2017, when the family’s apartment caught fire. While being interviewed, the

children disclosed that Lisa used drugs in front of them. Lisa admitted using marijuana and

sherm 1 and tested positive for PCP. DHS opened a protective-services case and made

1 Cigarettes dipped in PCP. referrals to provide Lisa with services. The boys went to live with a cousin, but when the

cousin could no longer care for the children, DHS took a seventy-two hour hold on the

juveniles.

In August 2017, the court found that probable cause existed to continue custody

with DHS, and the children were adjudicated dependent-neglected the next month. The

court found the children were dependent-neglected and made specific findings that the

mother lacked stable housing, refused services, and had positive drug screens for PCP and

cocaine.

The case progressed, and while Lisa had some compliance with the court’s orders

throughout the case, she was never in full compliance, and there was never a point in which

the children could be safely placed with her. On December 7, 2018, DHS filed a petition

seeking termination of Lisa’s parental rights, alleging the grounds of failure to remedy, 2

subsequent factors, 3 and aggravated circumstances. 4

On February 27, 2019, the circuit court held a termination hearing. It heard

testimony from Lisa, who testified that at the time of the hearing, she was staying with a

friend, did not have a job, had used PCP three weeks before the hearing, and had not

completed any of the drug-treatment classes. It next heard testimony from the caseworker,

Lauren Hill. Lauren corroborated much of Lisa’s testimony and further testified that if the

boys were returned to Lisa they would be returned to a “very unstable, unpredictable, and

2

(b)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2017). 3

(b)(3)(B)(vii). 4

(b)(3)(B)(ix).

2 unsafe home environment.” She said that it was extremely important for the boys to

maintain their sibling bond and that they wanted to reunify with their mother. Lauren

further testified that the older boy was almost seventeen and his consent would be required

for any adoption. She stated that DHS was unable to find a relative who would assume

custody of the boys. A maternal aunt was willing to take the boys, but DHS was concerned

about the size of her apartment and her suspended license. The aunt did resolve her license

issue, but Lauren said there was a lack of movement regarding that placement because the

aunt was not returning Lauren’s calls.

An adoption specialist also testified. She said that the boys are adoptable and there

are ninety-two families in the database willing to adopt a sibling group such as theirs. She

also testified that when a child is unwilling to consent, DHS moves forward with adoption

for the other child alone. She stated that there have been situations in which children do

not want to be adopted but ultimately do consent to an adoption. She believed there were

no barriers to these boys being adopted.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court granted DHS’s petition to terminate Lisa’s

parental rights to her sons on all three grounds pleaded by DHS. An order was entered to

that effect on March 25, 2019, and Lisa timely appealed. On appeal, she argues that the

termination of her parental rights was not in the children’s best interest.

Termination-of-parental rights cases are reviewed de novo. Mitchell v. Ark. Dep’t of

Human Servs.,

,

. The termination-of-

parental-rights analysis is twofold; it requires the circuit court to find that the parent is unfit

and that termination is in the best interest of the child. Fisher v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs.,

3

,

. The first step requires proof of one or more

of the nine enumerated statutory grounds for termination.

The second step, a best-

interest determination, must consider the likelihood that the children will be adopted and

the potential harm caused by returning custody of the children to the parent.

The appellate inquiry is whether the circuit court’s finding that the disputed fact was

proved by clear and convincing evidence is clearly erroneous. Mitchell,

,

. 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.

Due regard is given to the circuit court’s

opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Childress v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs.,

,

.

On appeal, Lisa does not challenge the statutory grounds and instead limits her

argument to the best-interest determination. But even within her best-interest argument,

Lisa does not address the findings associated with adoptability or potential harm. Because

she has not challenged the court’s decision as to the grounds for termination, adoptability,

or potential harm, we need not address them now. Fisher,

,

. Instead, Lisa contends that the circuit court’s decision to terminate her

parental rights was erroneous and not in the children’s best interest when considering the

age of the children, their desire for reunification, and her request for additional time. We

reject Lisa’s arguments.

Lisa contends that the boys’ older ages make it harder for them to find adoptive

homes and that their desire to maintain a relationship with their mother and each other

4 would always put any potential adoption at risk. Lisa did not advance these arguments to

the circuit court and they are not preserved for appellate review. See, e.g., Strickland v. Ark.

Dep’t of Human Servs.,

,

.

Second, the circuit court accepted and considered evidence concerning the children’s

preferences regarding placement and adoption, but DHS was not required to provide any

proof on the issue of consent to adoption. See, e.g., Guardado v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs.,

,

(“Guardado has cited no legal authority, and

we are aware of none, that would mandate that the circuit court’s best-interest

determination must accommodate a child’s stated preference regarding custody.”).

Moreover, Lisa failed to preserve any argument regarding the children’s preferences or

likelihood of consent. Brabon v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs.,

,

(rejecting appellant’s argument that “the children did not want to be adopted

and that they were old enough to have their consent required” when the argument was not

made below).

Regarding her request for additional time, we have long held that a “a child’s need

for permanency and stability may override a parent’s request for additional time to improve

the parent’s circumstances.” Mitchell,

,

. Indeed,

regarding the nineteen-month-long case, Lisa conceded that both DHS and the circuit court

“[t]ried to give me as much as time as possible and I know that y’all can’t just keep

prolonging this on and prolonging this on until I get myself on track to where I need to be;

I don’t know how much time that I need.” The circuit court was not required to give Lisa

5 more time based on a vague hope of improvement, especially when the children had been

out of her custody for nineteen months.

Finally, no evidence was presented to the circuit court regarding a viable relative-

placement or custody option; thus, it was not clear error for the circuit court to find that

termination of Lisa’s parental rights was in the children’s best interest. At the termination

hearing, Lisa conceded that she did not have any available, appropriate relatives willing to

take custody of her children. In addition, Lauren testified about DHS’s efforts to pursue the

possibility of permanent custody with a relative and two fictive kin. However, none of the

three individuals identified were willing to follow through with the process. Therefore, the

circuit court did not err in finding that it was in the children’s best interest to terminate

Lisa’s parental rights.

Affirmed.

GRUBER, C.J., and HARRISON, J., agree.

Tabitha McNulty, Arkansas Commission for Parent Counsel, for appellant.

Callie Corbyn, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.

Chrestman Group, PLLC, by: Keith L. Chrestman, attorney ad litem for minor

children.

6