Cloninger v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.

Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 123
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CV-14-887
Opinion Delivered February 25, 2015
ROBIN CLONINGER
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CONWAY
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. JV-13-11]
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HONORABLE TERRY SULLIVAN,
HUMAN SERVICES and MINOR JUDGE
CHILDREN
APPELLEES
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED
M. MICHAEL KINARD, Judge
This is an appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of appellant Robin
Cloninger to her minor children, M.C. and K.C. Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to
be relieved as counsel 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 Arkansas Supreme Court Rule
6-9(i), asserting that there are no issues of arguable merit to support the appeal. Counsel’s
brief details all adverse rulings made at the termination hearing and explains why there is no
meritorious ground for reversal. Pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-9(i)(3),
appellant filed pro se points for reversal.
The record shows that the children were taken into custody in March 2013 following
a thirteen-month long protective-services case. Despite numerous services provided during
the protective-services case, there were multiple investigations for inadequate supervision,
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 123
medical neglect, educational neglect, and environmental neglect. When the children were
taken into custody, the family’s home had no gas or water, was filthy, and was infested with
lice and roaches. The children had head lice, were dirty and not properly clothed, and were
in need of medical care. Appellant failed to comply with the case plan or make any progress
toward alleviating the causes of the children’s removal. She had been arrested numerous
times since the children were taken into custody, and at the time of the June 2014
termination hearing, had been incarcerated since September 2013. After a hearing, the court
found that termination was in the children’s best interest and that multiple grounds for
termination had been proved.
Appellant argues in her pro se points that she had bettered herself while incarcerated
and had made progress since her release. However, post-termination progress is not a ground
for reversal of an order terminating parental rights. Weaver v. Arkansas Department of Human
Services, 2012 Ark. App. 437.
Based on our examination of the record and the briefs presented to us, we find that
counsel has complied with the requirements established by the Arkansas Supreme Court for
no-merit termination cases, and we hold that the appeal is wholly without merit.
Consequently, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the order terminating
appellant’s parental rights.
Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
GLADWIN, C.J., and BROWN, J., agree.
Suzanne Ritter Lumpkin, Arkansas Public Defender Commission, for appellant.
Tabitha Baertels McNulty, DHS Office of Policy and Legal Services; and Chrestman
Group, PLLC, by: Keith L. Chrestman, for appellees.
2