Corley v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, CA

• Decision Date: 06 July 1994
• Docket Number: No. CA,CA
• Citation: 46 Ark.App. 265,878 S.W.2d 430
• Parties: Crystal Dawn CORLEY, Appellant, v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Howard D. and Cathy Ann Dodgen, James Thurman Corley, Appellees. 93-1033.
• Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals

Page 430

878 S.W.2d 430

46 Ark.App. 265

Crystal Dawn CORLEY, Appellant, v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Howard D. and Cathy Ann Dodgen, James Thurman Corley, Appellees.

No. CA 93-1033.

Court of Appeals of Arkansas Division I.

July 6, 1994.

Walters Law Firm, Greenwood, for appellant.

Sara M. Sawyer, Monticello, Kay West Forrest, West Memphis, for Ark. Dept. of Human Services.

COOPER, Judge.

The appellant is the mother of two children, Andrew Michael Corley, born November 12, 1990, and Amber Michelle Corley, born October 22, 1989. She appeals a chancery court order terminating her parental rights and granting the adoption of the children by the appellees, Howard D. Dodgen and Cathy Ann Dodgen. We affirm.

On January 22, 1991, Andrew Corley was admitted to Sparks Regional Hospital with multiple fractures. On January 25, 1991, the appellee Arkansas Department of Human Services obtained an order finding both children dependent/neglected/abused and took custody of them. The Dodgens subsequently petitioned for and were granted temporary custody of the children after a review hearing on May 16, 1991. The court conducted review hearings during the following two years and found the reunification attempts unsuccessful and continued custody with the Dodgens. The Dodgens subsequently petitioned for termination of the parental relationship and for adoption pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 9-9-220 (Repl.1993) ¹. After a hearing on May 17, 1993, the chancery court found that, although the parents had made some effort to comply with the terms of the case plan, there was not a reasonable likelihood in the future that they could comply with the case plan to the extent that the best interest of the children would mandate that they be returned to them. The chancellor found that it was in the best interest of the children that the parental rights be terminated and the Dodgens' petition for adoption be granted. On appeal, the appellant contends that the chancellor clearly erred in terminating her parental rights and in granting the adoption.

Chancery cases are reviewed de novo on appeal, and we will reverse the chancellor's findings only if they are clearly erroneous or clearly against a preponderance of the evidence, giving due regard to the opportunity and superior position of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Jones v. Jones, 43 Ark.App. 7, 858 S.W.2d 130 (1993); Manuel v. McCorkle, 24 Ark.App. 92, 749 S.W.2d 341 (1988). Our case law is clear that termination of parental rights is an extreme remedy and in derogation of the natural rights of the parents. Anderson v. Douglas, 310 Ark. 633, 839 S.W.2d 196 (1992). However, parental rights will not be enforced to the detriment or destruction of the health and well being of the child. Burdette v. Dietz, 18 Ark.App. 107, 711 S.W.2d 178 (1986).

Arkansas Code Annotated § 9-9-220 (Repl.1993) provides in pertinent part:

(a) The rights of a parent with reference to a child, including parental right to control the child or to withhold consent to an adoption, may be relinquished and the relationship of parent and child terminated in or prior to an adoption proceeding as provided in this section.

. . . . .

(c) In addition to any other proceeding provided by law, the relationship of parent and child may be terminated by a court order issued under the subchapter on any ground provided by other law for termination and the relationship, or on the following grounds:

. . . . .

(2) Neglect or abuse, when the court finds the causes are irremediable or will not be remedied by the parent.

A. If the parents have failed to make reasonable efforts to remedy the causes and such failure has occurred for twelve (12) months, such failure shall raise the rebuttable presumption that the causes will not be remedied.

B. If the parents have attempted to remedy the causes but have failed to do so within twelve (12) months, and the court finds there is no reasonable likelihood the causes will be remedied by the eighteenth month, such failures shall raise the rebuttable presumption that the causes will not be remedied.

At the final hearing, Kathy Clark, a psychological examiner, testified that the appellant had substantially improved and that her behavior was less impulsive. However, she stated that the appellant had not taken responsibility for the physical abuse to her children. She went on to state that she could not say that the causes of abuse had been remedied. The appellant's case worker, Monica Eisenhower, testified that the appellant had complied with all the terms and conditions of her case plan. She stated that she had seen a substantial improvement in the appellant, that she was more stable and was maintaining a job and housing. However, she stated that she would recommend termination of parental rights because...