Raney v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. ( 2013 )

Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 751
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CV-13-707
BRADLEY RANEY Opinion Delivered December 18, 2013
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
EIGHTH DIVISION
[NO. JN2012-561]
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES and MINOR HONORABLE WILEY A. BRANTON,
CHILD JR., JUDGE
APPELLEES
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
ROBIN F. WYNNE, Judge
Bradley Raney appeals from the termination of his parental rights to his son, B.R. His
counsel has filed a motion to withdraw 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 Ark. Sup.
Ct. R. 6-9(i) (2013). As required by Rule 6-9(i)(3), the clerk of this court mailed Raney a
copy of counsel’s brief and notified him that pro se points for reversal would be due in thirty
days, but he did not file any such points. We affirm the trial court’s termination of Raney’s
parental rights and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
B.R., age three weeks, and his half-sibling, two-year-old M.C.,1 were taken into
emergency custody after a search warrant was executed on Bradley and Heather Raney’s
1
B.R. and M.C.’s mother, Heather Raney, is not a party to this appeal. Appellant
Bradley Raney is the father of B.R. but is not the father of M.C.
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 751
residence while the children were present. The search revealed narcotics and weapons;
appellant and his wife were arrested and charged with maintaining a drug premises, possession
of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia, and two counts of endangering the welfare of
a minor. There were also environmental issues with the home.
The Arkansas Department of Humans Services (DHS) filed a petition for termination
of parental rights alleging as grounds for termination of appellant’s parental rights that (1)
other factors or issues had arisen subsequent to the original petition for dependency-neglect2
and (2) that he had been found to have subjected a juvenile to aggravated circumstances.3 At
the time of the termination hearing, appellant admittedly had not completed any type of drug
treatment or submitted to a psychological evaluation. Since this DHS case began, appellant
had been arrested for domestic battery of his wife and for violating a protective order held by
the mother of his older child. In addition, the criminal charges appellant faced remained
unresolved at the time of the termination hearing.
In the order terminating parental rights, the court found that it was in B.R.’s best
interest to terminate appellant’s parental rights, considering the likelihood of adoption and the
potential harm caused by return to appellant’s custody. The court made specific findings
regarding appellant’s eleventh-hour compliance with the case plan, his failure to complete the
psychological evaluation despite specific orders to do so, the importance of the psychological
evaluation given his history of criminal convictions and domestic violence, and the high risk
of relapse based on his significant history of substance abuse, which remained untreated. The
2
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a) (Supp. 2011).
3
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(ix)(a)(3)(B)(i).
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 751
court further found that appellant had subjected his son to aggravated circumstances in that
it was unlikely that continued services would result in reunification, noting appellant’s willful
refusal to complete essential reunification services. As for the “other factors” that prevented
return to appellant’s custody, the court noted that appellant had been arrested twice since the
case was opened.
Counsel states that the court’s findings in support of termination were not clearly
erroneous, and we agree. Regarding best interest, there was testimony by the adoption
specialist that B.R. was highly adoptable and there was ample evidence of the potential harm
caused by returning B.R. to appellant’s custody. Appellant had made some progress toward
the end of the case, but he had not followed the case plan in crucial respects (drug treatment
and psychological evaluation) and had not demonstrated that he would be able to provide a
stable home. Counsel adequately explains why the trial court’s findings are supported by law
and sufficient facts and any argument for reversal would be frivolous and correctly states that
there were no other adverse rulings at the termination hearing.
After carefully examining the record and counsel’s brief, we hold that counsel has
complied with the requirements for no-merit briefs and that the appeal is wholly without
merit. Therefore, we affirm the termination order and grant the motion to withdraw.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
HIXSON and BROWN, JJ., agree.
Leah Lanford, Arkansas Public Defender Commission, for appellant.
No response.
3