Fatima Hasan v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Child

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 349
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CV-24-59

FATIMA HASAN Opinion Delivered May 29, 2024
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, EIGHTH
DIVISION
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF [NO. 60JV-22-244]
HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR
CHILD HONORABLE TJUANA BYRD
APPELLEES MANNING, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Judge

Appellant, Fatima Hasan, appeals the October 2023 circuit court order that

terminated her parental rights to her son, MC, born in April 2022. Fatima’s sole argument

is that the circuit court committed reversible error by its “wholesale dismissal” of her efforts

in the three months leading up to the termination hearing. We affirm.

The Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) took emergency custody of MC

in April 2022 shortly after he was born because both mother and son tested positive for

drugs, including PCP, methamphetamine, and THC. Also, Fatima reported that she had

untreated mental-health issues, including depression, PTSD, schizophrenia, and bipolar

disorder. DHS did not seek custody of Fatima’s six-year-old daughter because she was living

with, and being raised by, her maternal grandmother, Tina Hollis. No father or putative
father appeared or participated in this case. Fatima agreed that there was probable cause to

support removing MC from her custody.

In June 2022, the circuit court adjudicated the children dependent-neglected due to

parental unfitness and neglect. The court ordered a myriad of services to address Fatima’s

drug addiction, mental-health needs, and parenting deficiencies.1 She admittedly had not

taken mental-health medications since she became pregnant with MC. Instead, she self-

medicated with illegal drugs, both before and after her son’s birth. The circuit court ordered

DHS to more thoroughly vet the maternal grandmother and her home to determine whether

it was appropriate for Fatima’s daughter. The circuit court informed Fatima that “the clock

is ticking” on her time to substantially rehabilitate herself and her circumstances and that

the court would determine a permanency plan for her son within a year. Fatima was ordered

to abide by the court’s orders, participate in the services offered, maintain sobriety, take

appropriate medications, maintain stable housing and income, and cooperate with DHS.

Fatima was admittedly slow to respond to services and was not in compliance through

the first half of 2023. Fatima was late to the permanency-planning hearing. Although Fatima

had attended inpatient drug treatment, she was admittedly still using illegal drugs including

“sherm” as recently as three weeks before this hearing. Fatima admitted she needed

professional help with her mental health. The circuit court changed the goal for MC to

1
The services included a referral for parenting classes, outpatient substance-abuse
treatment, therapy, a mental-health assessment, a medication assessment, a psychological
evaluation, and drug screens.

2
termination of parental rights, finding that Fatima had not made substantial, measurable

progress; had not benefitted from the services offered; and had not visited MC enough times

to form a bond with him. She participated in only ten of one hundred possible visits. The

permanency-planning order was filed in May 2023.2

In July 2023, DHS filed a petition to terminate Fatima’s parental rights to MC. Also

in July, Fatima tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and THC.

The termination hearing was conducted in September 2023. The DHS caseworker

testified that Fatima continued to test positive for drugs throughout the case. Although

Fatima completed a psychological evaluation and inpatient drug treatment, she did not

follow outpatient recommendations until two or three months before the termination

hearing. Fatima would, according to the caseworker, sometimes “just go off the grid.”

Fatima missed most opportunities to visit with her son, and when they did visit, Fatima

would have to be redirected to appropriately parent him. There was no apparent bond

between Fatima and her son; he mostly cried during visits.

2
At the permanency-planning stage for MC, the circuit court learned that Fatima’s
daughter’s whereabouts were unknown; the school district had dropped her for
nonattendance and listed her as homeless. The circuit court ordered a seventy-two-hour hold
on Fatima’s daughter to determine whether the maternal grandmother was able to provide
for her basic needs and care. The circuit court ordered that home studies and background
checks be required for any relative wanting to be considered for placement. The circuit court
decided not to set a case-plan goal for Fatima’s daughter pending the evidence resulting from
a seventy-two-hour hold on her.

3
DHS’s adoption specialist testified that she located 276 possible adoption resources

for MC, she knew of no barriers to his being adopted, and she believed it likely that MC

would be adopted.

Fatima said she had been living with her maternal aunt for the previous six months.

She did not have a job or her own residence. Fatima acknowledged that she had not engaged

fully with DHS services the first year or so of the case, but for the previous three months, she

was invested in the case plan and serious about reunification. She said she was going to

outpatient treatment and therapy classes and taking Zoloft (an antidepressant). Fatima’s

mother, Tina, believed that Fatima could take care of MC. However, Tina rarely saw Fatima

and admitted that her daughter’s mind was not stable. Tina said Fatima was diagnosed as a

child with several disorders, including ADHD, autism, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia.

DHS urged the circuit court to terminate parental rights, noting that Fatima had only

begun to fully participate in services the last couple of months. The attorney ad litem agreed

with DHS, stating that her efforts “in the fifteenth month of a seventeen-month case for a

seventeen-month-old child is too little, too late.” Fatima’s attorney acknowledged the

amount of evidence presented against his client but asked for more time for Fatima’s mother

to become MC’s legal guardian because retaining familial relationships was in MC’s best

interest.

The circuit court found that three statutory grounds listed in Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-

341(b)(3)(B) (Supp. 2023) had been proved: (1) out of custody for a year with failure to

remedy; (2) incapacity or indifference to remedy subsequent other factors; and (3) aggravated

4
circumstances, meaning little likelihood that additional services would result in

reunification. The circuit court also found it to be in MC’s best interest to terminate

parental rights, having considered that MC was highly likely to be adopted and that there

was potential harm in returning MC to Fatima because of her mental-health issues, drug

problems, and instability. The circuit court acknowledged that Fatima had recently begun

attending outpatient treatment and was receiving some kind of mental-health treatment,

which was good for Fatima, but it was too late for MC because he needs permanency, having

been in DHS’s custody since he was born.

On appeal, Fatima asserts that the circuit court completely disregarded her progress

in the three months prior to the termination hearing. We hold that Fatima has failed to

demonstrate reversible error.

Termination of parental rights is a two-step process requiring a determination that

the parent is unfit and that termination is in the best interest of the child. Gilbert v. Ark.

Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2020 Ark. App. 256, 599 S.W.3d 725. The first step requires proof of

one or more statutory grounds for termination; the second step, the best-interest analysis,

includes consideration of the likelihood that the juvenile will be adopted and of the potential

harm that would be caused by returning custody of the child to the parent. Id. Termination

of parental rights is an extreme remedy and in derogation of the natural rights of parents,

but parental rights will not be enforced to the detriment or destruction of the health and

well-being of the child. Harris v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2024 Ark. App. 135, 684 S.W.3d

348. We review findings in dependency-neglect proceedings de novo. Id. A finding is clearly

5
erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court, having

considered the entire evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has

been committed. Id.

This DHS case was pending for well over a year during which Fatima persistently

tested positive for drugs and resisted working the case plan. It was only toward the end of

the case, after the goal had been changed to termination, that Fatima began to take the case

plan requirements seriously. The circuit court did not clearly err in finding that it was in

MC’s best interest to terminate parental rights. We agree that in termination proceedings,

the circuit court must consider a parent’s compliance during the entire dependency-neglect

case and the evidence presented at the termination hearing in deciding whether termination

is in the child’s best interest. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(a)(4)(B). The circuit court did not

ignore Fatima’s efforts in the final months of this case; the circuit court acknowledged it.

The circuit court determined that her recent improvements were not compelling enough to

continue this DHS case. Thus, the circuit court clearly considered and weighed Fatima’s

compliance throughout the entire case and did not reject her last-minute efforts out of hand.

See Beck v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2017 Ark. App. 467, 528 S.W.3d 869. MC needed

permanency, which is the goal of the Juvenile Code, and permanency could not be achieved

in a reasonable period of time as viewed from MC’s perspective. We hold that the circuit

court did not clearly err in terminating Fatima’s parental rights to MC.

Affirmed.

HARRISON, C.J., and MURPHY, J., agree.

6
Leah Lanford, Arkansas Commission for Parent Counsel, for appellant.

Kaylee Wedgeworth, Ark. Dep’t of Human Services, Office of Chief Counsel, for

appellee.

Dana McClain, attorney ad litem for minor child.

7