Allura Ring and Carl Ring v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Child

Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 150
Reason: I attest to the
accuracy and integrity of this
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
document
Date: 2021-07-01 11:40:34
Foxit PhantomPDF Version: DIVISION II
9.7.5 No. CV-19-832

Opinion Delivered: February 26, 2020

ALLURA RING AND CARL
RING APPEAL FROM THE SHARP
APPELLANTS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 68JV-18-211]
V.
HONORABLE MICHELLE HUFF,
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF JUDGE
HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR
CHILD
APPELLEES AFFIRMED

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

Appellants Allura and Carl Ring separately appeal the July 26, 2019 order of the

Sharp County Circuit Court adjudicating their daughter, M.R., dependent-neglected based

upon neglect and parental unfitness. We affirm.

The facts of this case are not in dispute. The Arkansas Department of Human

Services (DHS) was contacted through the child-abuse hotline on December 11, 2017,

concerning three-month-old G.R. who presented to White River Medical Center

(WRMC) with brain damage and skull fractures after Carl compressed his chest several times

causing G.R. to stop breathing. G.R. was subsequently transported to Arkansas Children’s

Hospital (Children’s) and further examination revealed a corner fracture of the tibia and

humerus bilateral fractures to the arm. DHS made a true finding against Carl on December
11 for suffocation, bone fracture, and skull fracture. A protection plan was put in place on

December 14, allowing Allura to keep G.R. in her custody under the stipulation that Carl

was to have no contact with the child. A seventy-two-hour hold was placed on G.R. on

January 29, 2018, after DHS learned that Allura had returned to the home of Carl with

G.R. DHS made a true finding against Allura on January 29 for failure to protect. Allura

and Carl stipulated on March 16 that G.R. was dependent-neglected “based on the child

having suffered an injury which is inconsistent with the medical history provided by the

parents.”1 On June 5, Allura and Carl executed consents to the termination of their parental

rights to G.R. The court entered an order terminating their parental rights by consent on

June 19.

DHS received another report through the child-abuse hotline on November 26, for

a threat of harm. DHS arrived at WRMC where Allura had just given birth to M.R.

According to the hotline report, Carl had been seen at the hospital following M.R.’s birth.

Allura was asked about Carl’s presence at the hospital as well as what her intentions were

upon being discharged, including what safety factors were in place to protect M.R. Allura

refused to answer DHS’s questions without having a lawyer present, and a seventy-two-

hour hold was subsequently placed on M.R. DHS filed a petition for emergency custody

and dependency-neglect with supporting affidavit on November 27. In the petition, DHS

alleged that M.R. was dependent-neglected as a result of neglect or parental unfitness.

The adjudication hearing took place on July 18, 2019, and recounted the facts

surrounding G.R.’s numerous injuries. Mark Counts of the Sharp County Sheriff’s Office

1
The adjudication order was not filed until July 24, 2018.

2
testified that he received a call on December 11, 2017, concerning a child being abused.

He stated that he went to WRMC and met with Allura and Carl. He said that he

subsequently traveled to Children’s and again met with Carl. He testified that Carl

“confessed to abusing his child.” According to Sheriff Counts, Carl’s father had called Carl

and asked him to go check on the chicken houses. When Carl received the call, Allura was

in the shower, so he took G.R. with him. Sheriff Counts further testified,

They live close to their family farm, across the road. And he said that the
baby had been fussing, been talking how the baby had been fussing since it was born.
The baby continuous [sic] cried. Got over to his parents’ house and the baby had
got so upset that it was distressing him. And he demonstrated showing us how he -
what I would consider CPR, pressing on the chest of the baby so it would quit
breathing. He said the baby would quit crying for a short period of time and then
the baby would start screaming again. And then he would press on his chest again
and done that a series of three or four times: and then the last time the baby didn’t
respond. And so that’s when he took the baby back to his wife over at their house
and called 911. He just described in the description he just described doing CPR on
the child till it quit breathing. I handcuffed him and escorted him out of the building
and placed him under arrest. As a result of that arrest charges were filed against him[.]

Sheriff Counts stated that after the arrest, he had no further contact with Carl.

Dr. Rachel Clingenpeel, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of

Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) and the associate director of the Team for Children

at Risk at Children’s, testified as an expert witness in child-abuse pediatrics at the

adjudication hearing. She stated that when she first evaluated G.R., “he had a period of

cardiac arrest” and had to be resuscitated. She said that G.R. was ultimately diagnosed with

six different bone fractures: two different fractures of his skull in two different locations; a

fracture of one of his scapulae; and three different metaphyseal fractures, also known as

3
corner fractures. She said that he also had a hypoxic ischemic brain injury.2 She opined

that corner fractures are “highly associated with physical abuse in infants,” and are located

at the ends of long bones. She testified that she made a medical diagnosis of child physical

abuse based on the totality of G.R.’s injuries. Dr. Clingenpeel stated that Carl told her he

had G.R. with him at the time of G.R.’s “collapse.” However, she stated that she received

histories from Allura and Carl separately and there was nothing in those histories that would

explain why G.R. went into cardiorespiratory arrest in the first place or that would explain

the numerous fractures. She testified that the injuries to G.R. were “a cause of serious threat

of death.” She stated that he was “clinically dead for a period of time before he was

resuscitated.” Dr. Clingenpeel said that G.R. suffers from profound permanent effects and

was “permanently and entirely disabled as a result of this. And he will require total care.

He will be dependent on caregivers for as long as he lives.” She testified that Carl told her,

“I am afraid I have killed my son.”

Wendy Holland, G.R.’s adoptive parent, testified that G.R. is quadriplegic and

functions on a level of zero to three months despite being twenty-two months old at the

time of the hearing.

Kim Lavespere, the caseworker assigned to M.R., testified that she, along with FSW

Karen Payne, went to WRMC on November 26, 2018, following a hotline call. She stated

that they talked to Dr. Genevieve White, the OB doctor, and the RN, Stephanie Wade.

She said that they attempted to talk to Allura, but Allura refused to answer without an

attorney present. She testified that she had concerns for M.R.’s health if Carl had access to

2
A type of injury to the brain due to deprivation of oxygen.

4
M.R. Lavespere stated that she was also the caseworker assigned to G.R. and that initially,

Allura was allowed to maintain custody of G.R. “for a short time” because there was a

protection plan in place and Allura had the “appropriate response to the incident.” She said

that G.R. was removed from Allura on January 29, 2018, a day after Allura made contact

informing Lavespere that she and G.R. had returned from Texas and was “questioning

whether or not Carl had actually abused G.R.” Lavespere completed a home visit on

January 29 and found personal items belonging to Carl, although Allura maintained that

Carl was living in a camper on the property. Lavespere stated that she tried to give Allura

other housing options before removing G.R., but Allura indicated that “she was not willing

to leave the home.” According to Lavespere, Allura and Carl were living together at the

end of G.R.’s case. She stated that at some point during G.R.’s case, she explained to Allura

and Carl that if they decided to have another child, the situation would have to be assessed

because the safety factor was still a concern and she would need to have a place separate

from Carl in order for the child to be safe. She testified that before removing M.R., she

asked Allura where she was living, and Allura refused to answer.

On cross-examination, Lavespere gave the following pertinent testimony:

I went to White River Medical Center because of the hotline call that I
received, the report that I received through the hotline. The last time I had seen
Allura Ring before I went to White River Medical Center was in 2018. It would
have been probably April or May of [2018] and then this was in November of 2018.

When I entered the hospital room it was myself, FSW Karen Payne, Angela
Ring, and Allura Ring. Before I reached the hospital, I hadn’t made any decision
regarding the ultimate action I would take. We were wanting to identify a discharge
address that would be separate from Carl Ring. And I was not able to obtain that.
I told everyone[,] including Mrs. Ring who is present in the courtroom what
information I was looking for. I told her and others in the room that this was a very
important factor in this safety assessment. I received no response.

5
Allura testified that when she returned to Arkansas, she resumed a relationship with

Carl. She stated that she would have had to permanently disassociate herself from Carl in

order to get G.R. back. She said that instead, she chose to give up her rights to G.R.

because she felt that was best for him. She stated she got pregnant with M.R. around

February or March 2018 while G.R. was in DHS’s custody. She testified that when she

gave birth to M.R., “no one told [her] that Carl was the problem.” She said that before

she went to WRMC to give birth, she and Carl were living together as husband and wife.

She stated that she did not think Carl had hurt G.R.

On cross-examination, Allura stated that Carl was never alone with M.R. at the

hospital and that he did not even get near her because he was sick. She stated that she did

not want to answer DHS’s questions at WRMC because she was “cautious” after her

involvement with them in G.R.’s case. She testified that due to her religion, divorce is not

an option except for adultery. She acknowledged that she has never been ordered by the

court or anyone else to divorce Carl. She stated that when she and Carl were living

together, there were no “little ones running around.” When asked whether she had an

opportunity to set up ground rules concerning Carl’s access to M.R., she testified,

Perfectly honest, I’ve been dealing with DHS before you have those kinds of
conversations. If she comes home, blah, blah, blah. But we had to kind of wait to
see if she was even going to come home. We had heard stories, ghost stories of
dealings with DHS and things like that. So, it was always a fear. But at the time of
removal, Carl had never had any unsupervised access to M.R. Carl had been in the
same room, but he didn’t touch her or anything. He stood on the opposite side of
the room and I held her. He didn’t ask to hold the baby. He had his hands in his
pockets. He just wanted to look at her. Our nurse, Stephanie Wade, stood by the
computer. We had kind of had a heart-to-heart about what could happen. Nurse
Wade was very sweet. I did not hear anybody there ask Carl to leave.

6
Upon examination by DHS, Allura acknowledged that she told Lavespere that she

did not believe Carl had done anything wrong. She stated that she also told her mother

that she “didn’t believe or was starting to believe that Carl didn’t do anything wrong.”

When questioned by the ad litem, Allura stated that it was not that she and Carl were not

willing to live separately, it was that their religion would not allow permanent disassociation.

She further testified:

No one told me I had to divorce my husband. DHS and the Court’s order
said I needed to establish my own residence. That I needed a source of income so
that I could pay for that. At no point did anyone say that I had to legally divorce my
husband. After that I did move to Texas. Again, after I came back to Arkansas, we
did live separate. And then it was made clear that that wasn’t acceptable. From that
point forward I never established my own home. When I left to go to the hospital
to have M.R., I left the marital home that I share with my husband. I didn’t have
things for M.R. before she was born there. They were all at my mother-in-law’s
house. We were all kind of just waiting to see what happened. I knew there was a
substantial risk that M.R. would not be allowed to stay with me if I was with Carl
Ring. On my own assumption, yes.

Honestly, no. I did not know when I refused to answer Ms. Lavespere’s
question as to where I lived that there was a substantial risk that M.R. would be
removed from me if I lived with Carl Ring. I stopped knowing that when I didn’t
answer her questions, I didn’t realize she was going to take my daughter because I
didn’t answer her questions. That’s what I mean. I assumed there was a risk. Yes,
I had that knowledge when I refused to answer Ms. Lavespere’s question. Sorry. I
got confused. I’m sorry. I have had time since M.R. was born to establish my own
home to show this Court that I was willing to separate from Carl Ring. I haven’t
done that. I remain married to him and I intend to stay married to him.

Allura told the court that she did not have any intentions of separating from Carl as

far as divorce. She stated that they “would pray about [it] and determine whether [they]

could separate physically or by home for the time, yes, to get M.R. back. But as far as

divorcing, no.” She also stated that Carl slept next to her “last night.” She asked the court

to return M.R. home to her and Carl. She further stated that she and Carl had taken

7
parenting classes; Carl has taken anger-management classes; and she underwent a psych

evaluation. She contended that what happened to G.R. was a “horrible accident,” and they

“can do better.”

Allura and Carl unsuccessfully made motions to dismiss at the conclusion of DHS’s

case. Jo Ferguson Davis, a CASA advocate, testified that she had been M.R.’s CASA worker

since January and had had several visits with M.R. since that time. On cross-examination

by the ad litem, Davis stated that CASA was not recommending that M.R. be returned

home at this time.

After closing arguments, the court stated the following:

I can’t remember which member of the Supreme Court said I know it when
I see it when referring to the obscenity laws. And maybe that’s the reason parental
unfitness isn’t defined. But in this case. I know it when I see it. This is parental
unfitness if I have ever even thought about reviewing it. This is not an allegation
where we have got a 14-year-old kid that might have been spanked a little too hard
or something. We are talking about an infant, a three-month-old infant with two
skull fractures and numerous other injuries. He is now a quadriplegic. I don’t know
how long he will live in that state, but he has got to have around-the-clock care,
probably at taxpayer expense. And from where I sit, it is the fault of Carl Ring[;]
and Ms. Allura Ring did nothing to protect her child from that abuse.

And the severity of the potential and the risk of harm is something that cannot
be ignored. It absolutely cannot be ignored. Because I feel like if I followed the
logic that you presented, Mr. Bristow, that we somehow have to wait when she has
another child and he’s around and say, oh, well, let’s wait, let’s just all sit here and
twiddle our thumbs and see if this one gets brain damage, no. I don’t think that’s
the law. I don’t think that – well, that’s not the law.

So, I am finding that M.R. is dependent-neglected, that she has been
neglected by her mother. Her mother’s failure to protect her from her father and
her own admission that she intends to stay married to him and would go right back
to him with that child if she is placed back into her care is very, very telling. I
honestly was kind of surprised to hear that Ms. Ring completed the 12th grade.
There is apparently some psych evals that have been accomplished in G.R.’s case that
I did not see. But I am aghast. So, I am also going to find that they are both unfit.
They are both unfit to parent this child at this time, and M.R. needs to remain in

8
the Department of Human Services’ custody and foster care. Mr. Ring should never
be around any child.

The adjudication order was filed on July 26 in which the court found M.R. dependent-

neglected as a result of neglect and parental unfitness. The order stated in pertinent part:

a. Specifically, the Court finds that there is evidence before the court that a
prior child of Carl and Allura Ring, was grievously injured while in the care of the
parents, that Carl Ring made statements to law enforcement to the effect that he had
squeezed [G.R.’s] chest until he stopped breathing, and that Carl Ring currently has
felony charges pending for those injuries. The parents had previously consented to
a termination of parental rights as to [G.R.].

b. The Court heard testimony from Dr. Rachel Clingenpeel, whom the
Court finds credible, that she had made a diagnosis of child abuse on [G.R.], based
on [G.R.] having multiple fractures including a scapula fracture and two skull
fractures and a hypoxic brain injury, and that the statements provided by the parents
initially as to these injuries were not consistent, but that the brain injury was
consistent with Carl Ring’s statement about squeezing the infant’s chest until the
infant stopped breathing.

c. The Court finds that Allura Ring had knowledge that the Department’s
position was that [s]he could not have had [G.R.] returned to her custody unless she
was separated and living independently from Carl Ring, whether or not she legally
divorced him, and she returned to the marital home in early 2018, and resumed
living with Carl Ring.

d. The Court finds that [M.R.] was born on November 26, 2018, and by her
own testimony, the mother, Allura Ring, was still living in the home with Carl Ring
as a husband and wife prior to giving birth and had been living in that home
subsequently.

e. Further, the Court finds, even after listening to the testimony of Dr.
Clingenpeel, which the Court finds credible, the mother testified under oath she
believes Carl Ring did not harm [G.R.], and that the injuries were the result of an
accident.

f. The Court finds this constitutes failure to take reasonable action to protect
the juvenile from abuse or parental unfitness when the existence of this condition is
known or should have been known on the part of Allura Ring.

g. The Court finds the evidence demonstrates parental unfitness on the part
of both Allura Ring and Carl Ring.

9
Both Allura and Carl filed timely notices of appeal. This appeal followed.

Adjudication hearings are held to determine whether the allegations in a petition are

substantiated by the proof.3 Dependency-neglect allegations must be proved by a

preponderance of the evidence.4 In reviewing a dependency-neglect adjudication, we defer

to the circuit court’s superior position to observe the parties and judge the credibility of the

witnesses.5 We will not reverse the circuit court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous.6

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.7

The juvenile code defines a dependent-neglected juvenile to include any juvenile

who is at substantial risk of serious harm as a result of neglect or parental unfitness as it

pertains to the juvenile, a sibling, or another juvenile.8 The definition of neglect includes

the failure to take reasonable action to protect the juvenile from abuse, neglect, or parental

unfitness when the existence of this condition was known or should have been known. 9

3
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-327(a)(1)(A) (Repl. 2015).
4
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-325(h)(2)(A)(2) (Repl. 2015).
5
Merritt v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 552, 473 S.W.3d 31.
6
Id.
7
Id.
8
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(18)(A) (Repl. 2015).
9
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(36)(A)(iii).

10
An adjudication of dependency-neglect occurs without reference to which parent

committed the acts or omissions leading to the adjudication; the juvenile is simply

dependent-neglected.10

Allura agues that the evidence is insufficient to support the court’s finding that M.R.

was dependent-neglected as a result of neglect or parental unfitness as it relates to Allura.

This argument ignores the fact that at this juncture, the concern is whether the child is

dependent-neglected, not which parent’s actions or inactions caused the adjudication.

Allura maintains that in order for M.R. to be deemed dependent-neglected based on what

transpired with G.R., there has to be some sort of “nexus between the harm presented by

the parent to the child who was dependent-neglected and the level of risk presented by the

parent to the child in the current case.”

Allura contends that M.R. was adjudicated dependent-neglected based on G.R.’s

previous adjudication. Here we had extensive testimony about the numerous injuries

suffered by G.R. as well as his current medical state as a result of those injuries. Despite

evidence that G.R.’s injuries were the result of physical abuse, Allura refused to believe that

Carl intentionally hurt G.R. She indicated to the court that she may be willing to separate

from Carl long enough to get M.R. back but she was not interested in a permanent

separation. She wanted the court to return the child back to her and Carl and insisted that

they “can do better.” The court did not adjudicate M.R. dependent-neglected based merely

on the fact that G.R. had previously been adjudicated dependent-neglected. The evidence

shows that the severity of the injuries suffered by G.R., Allura’s refusal to hold Carl

10
Merritt, supra.

11
accountable for G.R.’s injuries, and her willingness to allow Carl into M.R.’s life, placed

M.R. at substantial risk of serious harm. These facts support a finding of dependency-

neglect based on neglect and parental unfitness. Accordingly, we affirm.

Carl also argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the court’s finding that

M.R. was dependent-neglected as a result of neglect or parental unfitness. He makes several

subarguments in support of his challenge to the adjudication. However, his arguments are

without merit. The undisputed evidence shows that Carl physically abused G.R., causing

G.R. to now be quadriplegic and need around-the-clock aid. There is no doubt that a

parent who abuses a child to that extent is unfit. Thus, M.R. is at substantial risk of serious

harm due to Carl’s unfitness. Carl argued below that the term “parental unfitness is void

for vagueness.”11 However, there is no indication that the argument was fully developed

below or that the court ruled on Carl’s argument. He now challenges “parental unfitness”

in his appeal before us. Absent a specific ruling on the constitutional claims, we are

precluded from addressing it on appeal.12 Even if the court had ruled on Carl’s void-for-

11
The specific argument was as follows:

Also, there is no definition for parental unfitness. That being so, this statute
regarding parental unfitness is void for vagueness. If there is not a definition there,
how is the Court to know how to apply parental unfitness? I understand there is
some case law that could possibly help out. But that is not what the Court is to look
at. These are creatures of statutes. The legislature should give a definition for
parental unfitness whenever it requires DHS to prove their case. DHS should have
to do that without a definition in there leaving -- makes this statute vague. So
parental neglect should not be found.
12
See Smith v. State, 363 Ark. 456, 215 S.W.3d 626 (2005).

12
vagueness claim, we would be unable to address his challenge as he has failed to provide

notice to the Arkansas Attorney General as required.13 Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

ABRAMSON and GLADWIN, JJ., agree.

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

Allura Ring.

Brett D. Watson, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by: Brett D. Watson, for separate appellant

Carl Ring.

Ellen K. Howard, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.

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

13
See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-111-111 (Repl. 2016).

13