The opinion
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 629
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CV-14-563
opinion Detivered Novembet 5,2074
QUINSHUNTA WINDOM APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
EIGHTH DIVISION
V. [No. 60N-12-23621
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HONORABLE WILEY A. BRANTON,
HUMAN SERVICES ANd MINOR JR.,JUDGE
CHILDREN
APPELLEES
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
WITHDRAW GRANTED
WAYMOIYD M. BROWN, Judge
The Pulaski County Circuit Court terminated the parental rights of appellant
'Windom to her seven children.t Windom's counsel has filed a motion to
Quinshunta
withdraw and a no-merit briefi pursuant to Linku-Flores u. Arkansas Dqartmmt of Human
Seruices,2 and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-9(i),'contending that there are no meritorious
grounds ro support an appeal. The clerk of our court mailed a certified copy of counsel's
morion and brief to appellant, informing her of her right to 6le pro se points for reversd.
rThe court also terminated the fathen' parental rights to the respective children,
with the exception ofDwayne Thompson. Flowever, these terminations are not the
subject of this apped.
2359 Ark. 731,794 s.w.3d 739 (2004).
tQol3).
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 629
Appellant has filed pro se points for reversal. The Arkansx Department of Human Senrices
(DHS) and the ad litem chose not to file a brief, However, they did file a joint resPonse to
appellant's pro se points. We affirm the termination order and grant counsel's motion
to
withdraw.
DHS became involved with the family in May 2010, due to allegtions ofsexual abuse
perpetrated against Windom's daughter, S.T., by appellant's boyfiend, Keith Lewis'
A safery
plan was put in place, requiring that Lewis have no contact with the children uPon his release
from incarceration. The case was closed inJune 2011. DHS took emergency custody ofthe
children on Decemb er 4,2072, after appellant was arTested for DWI, and
it was discovered
that appellant had left the children in the care of Lewis. DHS petitioned the
court for
The court issued
emergency custody due to inadequate supervision on December la,2072.
were adjudicated
an ex parte order for emergenry custody that same day. The children
dependent-negtected in an order 6led Febru ary 72,2}73,based
on the lack of a caretaker and
appellant's failure to Protect them by allowing a sex offender to
have contact with them' The
appellant to do a number
adjudication order established a goal of reunification and ordered
22,2073, the court found
ofthingS in order to reach the goal. In the review order filed May
plan and continued the
that the case plan was moving towards an aPPropriate permanency
place on Septembet 24,2013'
goal of reunification. A permanenry-planning hearing took
The court entered an order on octobe r 17,2a13, finding that compelling reasons exisred to
-2-
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 629
give the f"-ily more time. At a second permanency-platfning hearing on December 10,
I
2l73,the court changed the case's goal to termination of p[rentd rights'a
DHS filed a petition forthe termination ofappellant'l Parentd rights on December30,
2013. The petition listed five possible grounds for telgnination; however, only three
concemed appellant: (1) that the children had been apjudicated by the court to be
i
nrrelve months, and
dependent-negtected and had continued out of appellant'slcustody for
despite meaningful efforts by DHS to rehabilitate appeu*f *a correct the conditions that
(2) that subsequent to the filittg
caused removal, those conditions have not been remedied;f
of the original petition for dependenry-neglect, other factors or issues arose which
I
demonsrrare that rerurn of the children ro rhe family homelis contrary
to their hedth, safety,
l
had maniGsted
or welfare and that, despite the offer of appropriate family iervices, appellant
the incapaciry or indifference to remedy the subsequen, ir[rr., or factors
or rehabilitate the
and (3) that appellant
circumstances which prevenr rerurn ofthe children to the fafnily home;6
had subjected the children ro aggravated circumstances.' i
the
The terminarion hearing took place on February 21,2014. At the conclusion of
l
parental righs
hearing the court granted DHS's petition. The order terrlpinating appellant's
was entered on April 2,2014. It stated in pertinent part:
on December 19,2013'
--t-*"*ed
"-
sArk.
I
Code Ann. $ s-27-341'(bX3XBXi)(a) (Supp' f013)'
6Ark. Code Ann. 9-27-347 (bX:XBXvii)(a) (Supq' 20t3)'
$
?Ark. code Arrn.S g-27-347 (bX3XBXix)(a)(3) (S'pp' 2013)'
-3-
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 629
The fint ground of the petition for termination of frr.rtrt righs (hereafter referred
to as "the petition") is proven as to the mother. The mother is almost in the same
' situarion today as when-the case'started. In the begihning, the mother spent 40
days
in jail or, , D''wI charge. At the end of 2073, the mothet *T in jail. Today, the
mother has an outshnJiilg warrant which she says should have been withdrawn, and
Even
the court will give her the-benefit ofthe doubt. The mother has no credibiliry.
iflow functioiing, the morher had difficulry relatin$ the sequence of events of prior
history. The motherwas reluctant while testifying, trying to gauge whether or not to
lacked
be truthful on how her answers would sound to the court. The mother has
credibiliry throughout the entire case. The mother is an unstable person. The mother
has legal irrrr., ,id ir again without a home. The mpther has a history
of many men
being"in and out of hei life. Mr. Lewis is a sex offe4der. Mr. Handy is currently
in
priso"rr. This is problematic. The court is concemed that the mother
would continue
io live an unstatle fife if the children were returned to her.
The second ground ofthe petition is proven as to the mother[.] -The mother
has been
offered r.rrrifer, and she *rd. an effort to comply' However delivery
of services has
After
resulted in no material difference in rendering in. nlother fit and appropriate'
the case began, the mother has been in jail and has lOst her home[']
The third ground of the petition is proven as to the mother[.] It is unlikely
that
services to the mother would result l, ,,r...rrfuI rbunification
within a reasonable
are no
period of time consistent with the children's devetopmental needs. There
with
compelling reasons to give her more time. The mother had earlier involvement
DHS. The mother failed ,o pr*.., tS.T.l after bJing put on notice regarding the
allegarions in 2006 that Mr. Lewis sexually abused [B.T].t
children were adoptable and
In terminating appellant's parental rights, the court found thlt the
that potential harm existed if the children were retumed to appellant. This timely appeal
followed.
examining the
counsel contends that this appeal is without merit. After carefully
thlt counsel has complied with the
record, the brie{, and Windom's pro se points,e we hold
8Il.T. is appellant's oldest daughter' She was not the subject of this case'
\X/indom alleges in one of her pro se points for revprsal that appellate counsel
is a conflict' The record before
represented Lewis att"he terminatiol tertitg, and that-this
us, as well as the termination order, does ,roi rrrpport
Windom's contention' However'
this case'
we cannot think of a siruation that would change the outcome of
-4-
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 629
requirements established by the Arkansas Supreme Court for no-merit appeals in termination
cases,lo and we conclude that the appeal is wholly without nlerit. Accordingly, we affirm the
order terminating appellant's parental rights and grant counpel's motion to withdraw.
Afirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
'WHrrrarrR and HlxsoN,lJ., agree.
roln dependency-neglect cases, if, after studying the record and researching the law,
appellant's counsel determines that the appellant has no meritorious basis for appeal, then
counsel may flle a no-merit petition and move to withdraw. The petition must include an
argument section listing all adverse rulings to the appellant made by the circuit court on all
objections, motions, and requests made by the parry at the hearing from which the appeal
arose and explaining why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal. The
petition must also include an abstract and addendum contqining all rulings adverse to the
appellant rnade at the hearing from which the order on apleal arose. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-
e(il (2013)
_s_