Voncill Cooper And, Ruey Cooper v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 553
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CV-24-75

Opinion Delivered November 6, 2024

VONCILL COOPER AND APPEAL FROM THE UNION
RUEY COOPER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
APPELLANTS [NO. 70JV-23-72]

V. HONORABLE EDWIN KEATON,
JUDGE

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR
CHILDREN AFFIRMED
APPELLEES

KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge

This is a dependency-neglect case. The two children involved are Minor Child 1

(MC1) and Minor Child 2 (MC2)—both girls—who were ages thirteen and twelve when these

dependency-neglect proceedings began. These children were the subject of a previous

dependency-neglect case that resulted in the termination of their natural parents’ parental

rights. The appellants herein, Voncill Cooper (the adoptive mother) and Ruey Cooper (the

adoptive father) adopted MC1 and MC2 on December 31, 2022. Appellee Arkansas

Department of Human Services (DHS) initiated these dependency-neglect proceedings on

September 22, 2023, and on November 17, 2023, the trial court entered an adjudication

order finding MC1 and MC2 dependent-neglected as a result of physical and mental abuse.
The Coopers now appeal from the adjudication order, challenging the sufficiency of the

evidence to support the adjudication. We affirm.

I. Relevant Facts

On September 22, 2023, DHS filed a petition for dependency-neglect and emergency

custody of both children, alleging that the children were dependent-neglected as the result

of abuse, neglect, or parental unfitness. The petition stated that the children were removed

from the Coopers’ custody two days earlier due to an immediate danger to the health or

physical well-being of the children.

The affidavit of family-service worker Lisa Givens was attached to DHS’s petition.

The affidavit stated that both MC1 and MC2 had reported being beaten by Voncill and

Ruey with bamboo sticks and purse straps. MC1 stated in an interview that Voncill had hit

her with a purse strap on multiple parts of her body, including her head and face, and that

she had been suffering from abuse since the first day she was adopted by Voncill and Ruey.

MC1 stated that as a result of one of the beatings, she had a bruise on her side that lasted

three weeks. MC1 also stated that as punishment, she was made to stay in her room for

thirty days and could not come out except to eat and use the bathroom.

The affidavit stated that both children disclosed that they did not feel safe at home

and that they were afraid to go home because they were being beaten. Both children also

stated that they had plans to commit suicide if they were returned to Voncill and Ruey’s

residence. Due to concerns about the children’s physical and mental health, they were

admitted to Riverview Behavioral Health Hospital. During a scheduled family phone

2
session, MC1 refused to speak to Voncill at all, became very anxious, started breathing

heavily, and was on the verge of panic, so the therapist did not force MC1 to talk to Voncill.

The family phone session ended after MC1 and MC2 spiraled into anxiety attacks. The

affidavit stated that during their treatment, both girls were calm and cooperative, but when

the therapist mentioned their adoptive mother, their demeanors changed into a state of

panic.

On September 25, 2023, the trial court entered an ex parte order for emergency

custody of both children. A probable-cause order followed on October 10, 2023, wherein

the trial court found that the children were afraid to return home and that continued DHS

custody was necessary for the protection of the children’s health and safety.

An adjudication hearing was held on November 6, 2023. MC2 and MC1 were the

first witnesses to testify at the hearing.

MC2 testified that since being adopted by the Coopers, she had been subjected to

frequent whippings from both Voncill and Ruey. MC2 stated that these whippings were

administered with either a purse strap that had a metal piece at the end or a bamboo stick

and that they sometimes caused welts or bruising. MC2 stated that Voncill drinks whiskey

and that the beatings were worse when she was drinking and were often administered for

little or no reason. MC2 also stated that Voncill had told her and her sister that she had

researched how to “undo an adoption” and that Voncill and Ruey were planning to undo

the adoption.

3
MC2 stated that on one occasion, Ruey beat her with a bamboo stick, causing a bruise

on her stomach. MC2 showed the bruise to the school nurse, who MC2 said was shocked

by what she saw, and MC2 told the nurse the bruise came from a bad whipping. MC2 stated

that on three occasions, she had taken pictures of her bruises or other marks and that when

Voncill asked to see her phone, MC2 deleted the pictures for fear of getting into trouble.

MC2 also stated that there were occasions when “they would whip me on my arms and legs

and stuff,” and it would cause welts.

MC2 testified about an incident when she was fighting with MC1, and Voncill told

MC2 that she was going to get a whipping. MC2 ran to her bedroom and got under her

bed. MC2 stated that Voncill pinched her arm, and MC2 came out from under the bed.

After that, Voncill put her foot on MC2’s chest, during which MC2 was unable to breathe.

MC2 ran into the kitchen. Then, according to MC2, Voncill dragged her by her hair across

the floor into the living room. When Voncill dragged her, MC2 was lying down, and MC2’s

hair was the only thing Voncill was touching. Then Voncill told MC2 to lay across a chair,

and she started whipping her. MC2 stated that Voncill had punished her by dragging her

in this fashion on two prior occasions, but she never told anyone about it because Voncill

threatened the children with further harm if they disclosed the abuse.

MC1 testified that both Voncill and Ruey whipped her using a purse strap or a

bamboo stick, and that most of the time, the whippings were for no reason. MC1 stated

that the last whipping occurred within a week of the girls being taken into emergency DHS

custody. On that most recent occasion, Voncill got mad and told MC1 she was going to

4
hurt her. Voncill made MC1 get up against the kitchen bar and started “rapping [her] across

[her] back and neck” with the purse strap. When MC1 turned around, Voncill “actually

rapped [her] across [her] face a few times.” MC1 described the purse strap as “a black strap

with gold metals on it, on both ends.”

MC1 described another occasion when “she got whipped everywhere” by Voncill.

When asked what she meant by “everywhere,” MC1 said, “my face, my neck, my back, my

chest, my legs.” MC1 stated:

When she told me to lay across the chair, that’s when she whipped me on my butt.
And when I kept on getting off the chair because I can’t sit there that long getting a
whipping, I had moved and I started crawling on the floor and that’s when she started
rapping me everywhere.

MC1 also described when Voncill made her lie on the treadmill, and MC1 suffered injuries

to her face. MC1 testified that Voncill was hitting her with the purse strap nonstop and had

hit her at least ten times when MC1 turned over because “it was hurting [her]” and “[she]

couldn’t stand it.” After MC1 turned over, Voncill hit her three time in the face. MC1

stated that these whippings caused bruises, marks, and welts. She stated that “if I got a

whipping with that purse strap, I would get a bruise because that rubber would run across

my skin.” MC1’s face was bruised by the purse strap when Voncill “rapped [her] across [her]

face [and it] rapped [her] skin off.” MC1 corroborated MC2’s testimony that the whippings

were worse when Voncill was drinking. MC1 stated that she repeatedly reported these

whippings to one of her schoolteachers, Shannon Rogers, and showed Ms. Rogers her bruises

and marks.

5
MC1 also testified about how Voncill would send the girls to their bedrooms for

weeks at a time as punishment. MC1 stated that on one occasion, she was put in her room

for thirty-three days. MC1 stated that she could not come out to eat and that Voncill would

“send a plate in there.” The only time MC1 could come out of her room was to use the

bathroom, after which she “had to go right back in there and had to keep [her] door shut.”

Shannon Rogers, one of MC1’s schoolteachers, testified next. Ms. Rogers is not only

MC1’s teacher, she is also a longtime acquaintance of Voncill and is Voncill’s neighbor who

lives several houses away. Ms. Rogers is also a hairdresser and has styled Voncill’s hair.

Ms. Rogers testified that MC1 had come to her repeatedly at school and told her what

was going on in their home. MC1 would show Ms. Rogers the marks on her body that she

said came from getting whipped by Voncill. Ms. Rogers specifically testified about three

times that “really stuck out.” The first time, MC1 came to school “with her face looking like

it was busted.” MC1 had a bandage on her face, but it had been bleeding, so Ms. Rogers

applied antibiotic cream and replaced it with a bigger bandage. MC1 told Ms. Rogers that

she was getting a whipping, that Voncill kept hitting her in her face, that one time she hit

MC1 “real hard,” and that it immediately started bleeding. The second time MC1 came in

with marks on her arms and legs. The third time MC1 came to Ms. Rogers and showed her

scratches on the lower part of her back. Ms. Rogers testified further that one time when she

was outside her house, she heard a child who sounded like MC1 screaming and hollering,

although she could not “actually hear the physical licks.” Ms. Rogers stated that MC1 had

spoken with her about wanting to leave Voncill and Ruey’s residence. Since Ms. Rogers is a

6
mandated reporter of child abuse, she was asked why she did not report any of this to the

proper authorities. She stated that she herself never witnessed any abuse, and “knowing

Voncill like I do, I just didn’t think she was beating them.” Ms. Rogers also stated that she

“wanted nothing to do with it” and that she “kept trying to stay out of it.”

Ms. Rogers also testified about a conversation she had with Voncill during a time she

was styling Voncill’s hair. Voncill discussed how she would have MC1 bend over a chair

and would whip her with a purse strap. Voncill stated that she had bought the purse for the

express purpose of using the strap as a whip. Voncill told Ms. Rogers during their

conversation that she would whip the children and tire herself out and that she would have

to stop and take a break and then start again. Voncill also talked about how she would make

sure to hit the children in the same spot every time to maximize the burn. As a result of

overhearing Voncill’s comments, one customer became so uncomfortable that she asked to

not be scheduled at the same time as Voncill.

DHS family-service worker Lisa Givens was assigned to investigate the case. She stated

that she separately interviewed MC1 and MC2 at their school in September 2023 and that

both girls stated that they were going to hurt themselves and wanted to commit suicide if

they had to go back to Voncill and Ruey’s house. Ms. Givens stated that she also spoke with

Voncill during the investigation and that Voncill had “really nothing positive to say” about

the girls.

DHS family-service worker Jasmine Jennings was assigned to the case, and she

supervised the visits between the children and Voncill and Ruey. Ms. Jennings testified that

7
neither child wanted to visit Voncill and Ruey and would ask her why they had to visit.

During one visit when MC2 refused to communicate with them, Ruey told her he would

“throw the keys and hit her with it if she didn’t talk.”

Voncill testified that she has had to discipline the children for fighting each other

and for not cleaning up after themselves or doing household chores. She admitted that she

administered corporal punishment on the children by whipping them with a purse strap but

stated that she would hit them only on the buttocks. Voncill stated that she never caused

any marks on the children and that she has never abused them. She stated that any marks

on MC1’s face were caused from fighting with her sister. Voncill also stated that she thought

the children’s birth mother was coaching them to allege abuse in hope that the children

would be placed back with her.

Ruey testified that he, too, used corporal punishment on the children when they were

misbehaving or being disrespectful. Ruey stated that these were just “general whippings,”

that he hit the children only on their buttocks, and that he never saw any marks, scratches,

or bruises form the whippings.

Donna Lovett, the children’s adoptive aunt, testified that she and her husband live

next door to Voncill and Ruey. She testified that when MC1 and MC2 were living with

Voncill and Ruey, the children would frequent their house often and that she never saw any

marks, scratches, or bruises on the children.

8
On November 17, 2023, the trial court entered an adjudication order finding the

children dependent-neglected as a result of physical and mental abuse. In the adjudication

order, the trial court made the following relevant findings:

The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the allegations in the
petition are true and correct and the juveniles are at substantial risk of serious harm
as defined in the Arkansas Juvenile Code as a result of: [MC1] and [MC2] were
subjected to whippings over a period of time for no good reason. Shannon Rogers
testified that Voncill told her that she would hit the children in the same spot to
maximize the burning effect and would whip the children until she got tired and
would start again after she caught her breath. Voncill bought a purse for the purpose
of using it to whip the children. The Court cannot recall hearing about a parent
talking about how they whipped their children. . . . All together [the] children said
death would be better than returning home. The children were subjected to physical
and mental abuse. [MC1] was put in a room for 33 days, only allowed to [use the]
bathroom and eat and would have to go right back. Even without marks, whipping
for minor offenses is extreme.

....

Ruey did contribute to the dependency neglect of the herein juveniles, specifically,
whipped the children and did nothing to stop the mental and physical abuse that the
children were subjected to.

The trial court found that the return of the children to Voncill and Ruey’s custody is contrary

to the welfare of the children and that the continuation of DHS custody is in the children’s

best interest and necessary for the protection of their health and safety. The goal of the case

was reunification with a concurrent plan of a guardianship, and both parents were ordered

to complete parenting classes, participate in counseling, and undergo a psychological

evaluation.

This appeal followed.

II. Standard of Review

9
Adjudication hearings are held to determine whether the allegations in a petition are

substantiated by the proof. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-327(a)(1)(A) (Supp. 2023). A dependent-

neglected juvenile is one at substantial risk of serious harm as the result of, among other

things, abuse, neglect, or parental unfitness committed against the juvenile, a sibling, or

another juvenile. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(17)(A) (Supp. 2023). Dependency-neglect

allegations must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-

325(h)(2) (Supp. 2023). In dependency-neglect cases, the standard of review on appeal is de

novo, but we do not reverse the trial court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Walker

v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2017 Ark. App. 627, 534 S.W.3d 184. 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. Id. In

reviewing a dependency-neglect adjudication, we defer to the trial court’s evaluation of the

credibility of the witnesses. Id. The focus of an adjudication hearing is on the child, not the

parent; at this stage of a proceeding, the juvenile code is concerned with whether the child

is dependent-neglected. Id. An adjudication of dependency-neglect occurs without reference

to which parent committed the acts or omissions leading to the adjudication. Seago v. Ark.

Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 767, 360 S.W.3d 733. Further, proof of only one

allegation is necessary to support a dependency-neglect finding. See Raynor v. Ark. Dep’t of

Hum. Servs., 2022 Ark. App. 263, 646 S.W.3d 406.

III. Analysis

10
On appeal from the adjudication order, the Coopers challenge the sufficiency of the

evidence to support it. The Coopers contend that the trial court’s finding of dependency-

neglect was clearly erroneous, and they more specifically argue that the administration of

corporal punishment by spanking children and leaving transient marks does not support the

adjudication of dependency-neglect. For the following reasons, we disagree with the

Coopers’ argument.

The trial court adjudicated the children dependent-neglected based on its finding that

the children were at substantial risk of serious harm as a result of abuse committed against

both children. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(3)(A), “abuse” includes any of the

following acts or omissions by a parent or guardian:

(i) Extreme or repeated cruelty to a juvenile;

….

(iii) Injury to a juvenile’s intellectual, emotional, or psychological development as
evidenced by observable and substantial impairment of the juvenile’s ability to
function within the juvenile’s normal range of performance and behavior;

….

(v) Any nonaccidental physical injury;

(vi) Any of the following intentional or knowing acts, with physical injury and
without justifiable cause:

….

(d) Striking a child on the face;

….

11
(vii) Any of the following intentional or knowing acts, with or without physical
injury:

….
(c) Interfering with a child’s breathing;

Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(3)(C)(i)(a), “abuse” shall not include

“[p]hysical discipline of a child when it is reasonable and moderate and is inflicted by a parent

or guardian for purposes of restraining or correcting the child.” Subdivision (3)(C)(ii)

provides, “Reasonable and moderate physical discipline inflicted by a parent or guardian

shall not include any act that is likely to cause and that does cause injury more serious than

transient pain or minor temporary marks.” Subdivision (3)(C)(iii) provides, “The age, size,

and condition of the child and the location of the injury and the frequency or recurrence of

injuries shall be considered when determining whether the physical discipline is reasonable

or moderate.”

The Coopers argue that although they both admittedly whipped MC1 and MC2, they

were attempting to correct the girls’ behavior, and these whippings did not rise to the level

of abuse as defined in the Arkansas Juvenile Code. The Coopers also contend that there

was no evidence that any welts or bruises from using corporal punishment to discipline the

children created any substantial risk of serious harm. The Coopers note that the children’s

aunt and uncle lived next door, and their aunt testified that she never saw any marks or

scratches on the children. The Coopers further note that MC1’s teacher, Shannon Rogers,

is a mandated reporter but did not report any abuse because she did not think Voncill was

beating the children.

12
The Coopers sum up their argument as follows:

Corporal punishment of children for bad behavior is as old as having children.
There may be disagreement about the method, but if there is no substantial harm,
the parents have the freedom to decide how to raise their children as a liberty interest.
The definition of abuse does not include the use of corporal punishment for
disciplining a child so long as the discipline is moderated so it would not cause
substantial harm or injury. There is no evidence in this case of any substantial harm
or injury. Absent proof that the spankings were anything other than moderate or
reasonable and that they resulted in other than transient pain, there is no abuse.

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in

adjudicating MC1 and MC2 dependent-neglected based on its finding that the children are

at substantial risk of serious harm as the result of abuse. MC1 testified that Voncill had

whipped her repeatedly with a purse strap with metal ends that causes welts throughout her

body and that Voncill struck her three times in her face, which caused immediate bleeding

and a bruise. When MC1 came to school with a bandage on her face, Ms. Rogers saw that

it was bleeding and applied antibiotic cream and replaced it with a bigger bandage. MC2

testified that on three occasions, Voncill disciplined her by dragging her across the floor by

her hair, after which she would administer a whipping. MC2 testified further that during

one such episode, Voncill put her foot on MC2’s chest, and MC2 was unable to breathe.

MC2 also testified that Ruey whipped her with a bamboo stick, which resulted in a bruise

on her stomach that “shocked” the school nurse when MC2 showed it to her. There was

also testimony that Voncill made MC1 stay in her room for thirty-three days, and MC1 was

allowed to come out only to use the bathroom. As a result of the repeated whippings, both

MC1 and MC2 stated that they were afraid to go home, and if they had to return home, they

would kill themselves.

13
Although the Coopers argue that they did not abuse the children because their

physical discipline was reasonable and moderate and inflicted for the purpose of correcting

the children, we do not agree. As an initial matter, both MC1 and MC2 testified that often

times, the whippings were for little or no reason at all, and therefore, the whippings were

not administered for the purpose of “correcting the child” as required by the relevant

statutory provision. See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(3)(C)(i)(a). Moreover, there was

evidence that the physical discipline went beyond “reasonable and moderate.” There was

testimony that, while Voncill was having her hair styled, she talked about how she whipped

her children and how she made sure to hit the child in the same spot every time to maximize

the burn. Voncill indicated in that conversation that she would whip the children and tire

herself out and that she would have to stop and take a break and then start again. This is

consistent with the severity of the whippings as testified to by MC1 and MC2.

In light of the above, there was evidence presented from which the trial court could

conclude that the children were abused due to extreme or repeated cruelty, emotional injury,

suffering nonaccidental physical injuries, being struck in the face with physical injury and

without justifiable cause, and interference with a child’s breathing. Having considered this

evidence, we hold that the trial court’s finding of abuse was not clearly erroneous.

Although the Coopers also argue that their punishment of the children did not create

any substantial risk of serious harm, we conclude otherwise. The statutory definition of a

neglected child does not require proof of actual harm or impairment having been

experienced by the child. Maynard v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 82, 389

14
S.W.3d 627. The term “substantial risk” speaks in terms of future harm. Id. As a result of

the frequency and the severity of the whippings administered by Voncill and Ruey, MC1

and MC2 were afraid to go home, and as stated by the trial court in its order, “[the] children

said death would be better than returning home.” We are not left with a definite and firm

conviction that the trial court made a mistake in finding that MC1 and MC2 were at

substantial risk of serious harm as the result of the abuse inflicted by Voncill and Ruey.

IV. Conclusion

In conclusion, we hold that the trial court’s finding that MC1 and MC2 are

dependent-neglected was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the adjudication order is

affirmed.

Affirmed.

ABRAMSON and VIRDEN, JJ., agree.

Sheila F. Campbell, P.A., by: Sheila F. Campbell, for appellants.

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

appellee.

Dana McClain, attorney ad litem for minor children.

15