Garakasa Hoggatt v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Child

Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 318
Elizabeth Perry ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
I attest to the accuracy and
DIVISION IV
integrity of this document
No. CV-21-67
2023.07.06 14:29:27 -05'00'
2023.003.20215
Opinion Delivered September 8, 2021
GARAKASA HOGGATT
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE BENTON
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 04JV-19-262]
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR
CHILD HONORABLE THOMAS E.
APPELLEES SMITH, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

BRANDON J. HARRISON, Chief Judge

Garakasa Hoggatt, who goes by the name Kasey, appeals the Benton County Circuit

Court’s decision to terminate her parental rights. Kasey challenges the statutory grounds for

the termination and argues that it was in not in her two-year-old daughter’s best interest.

We affirm.

I.

In June 2019, Kasey and the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS)

stipulated that DP was a dependent-neglected juvenile. DP was removed from Kasey’s

custody because she had been living in an unsanitary home infested with insects and rodents

in Maysville, Arkansas. The home was also occupied by Kasey’s brother, who is a registered

sex offender, and Kasey’s significant other, Robert Pritchard. DHS provided Kasey with

community-resource referrals, healthy-family services, transportation, hygiene supplies,

cleaning supplies, budgeting help, medical and dental services, case-management services,
homemaker services, individual counseling, and visits with her daughter. In its June 2019

adjudication order, the circuit court noted that the dirty house needed to be cleaned by the

three nonworking adults living in the home and that DP could not be returned to a home

occupied by a sex offender.

In September 2019, the court found that Kasey had not made enough progress in

cleaning the Maysville house and gave Kasey one month to fix the trashed house or to find

a new residence. DHS was ordered to coordinate with Kasey’s landlord to treat a significant

roach problem.

Maysville is somewhat near Bentonville, Arkansas, where the DHS office and family-

service providers are located. In November 2019, two DHS caseworkers and a child-

advocacy volunteer arrived in Maysville to help Kasey clean up dead roaches, feces, and

decayed rats. The three workers also emptied Kasey’s refrigerator, threw away trash, and

cleaned the bathroom, among other things. According to DHS caseworker Brittney

Mather, it took Kasey nearly two hours to get out of bed after they arrived. She said that

Kasey came out of the bedroom only when they unplugged the music she was listening to

and that Kasey would go from one box to the other entertaining herself with her pet turtle

instead of cleaning. Mather said she tried to emphasize to Kasey that they were there to

“do this for [her]” and help her get her child back. Mather explained that a homemaking

service worker had previously tried to teach Kasey how to clean, but that “didn’t really

work very well.” Pictures from the Maysville November 2019 collective clean-up effort

were entered into evidence during the termination hearing.

2
In December 2019, Kasey agreed to move from Maysville to an apartment in

Bentonville. A no-contact order was entered between Kasey and her brother. DHS paid

for all expenses related to Kasey’s move to Bentonville—including paying her first month’s

rent and the deposit for the apartment. A December 2019 review order notes: “This is a

critical time. The house must be kept clean of dirt, food, and animals. [Kasey] must prove

that [she] can keep the house clean.” To further this goal, the circuit court ordered that

Kasey move nothing from her old house into the new apartment. Additionally, DHS was

ordered to pay for the electricity to be turned on in the apartment. To help with the fresh

start, a DHS caseworker took Kasey shopping at Goodwill for items that she needed for the

apartment. The court received photos of the sparse and clean Bentonville apartment that

had been taken in December 2019 as evidence against Kasey during the termination hearing.

Throughout the case, Kasey’s mental and physical health was at issue. A

psychological evaluation on Kasey was completed very early in the case, and the evaluator,

Martin T. Faitak, Ph.D., testified against Kasey during the termination hearing. The testing

performed by Dr. Faitak showed that Kasey has a positive bias—meaning that she denies

problems that most people admit. Kasey also met the criteria for the diagnosis of a dysthymic

disorder, which is a mild chronic depression. Dr. Faitak noted that Kasey tended to blame

other people instead of taking responsibility for her own behavior, that she scored high for

physical problems related to stress, and that she had more fearfulness than most people. He

estimated that her intellectual functioning is average to low average. Dr. Faitak

recommended that Kasey complete home-parent training and that she attend individual

counseling sessions to focus on her responsibility and commitment to parenting. Kasey,

3
however, did not attend these individual counseling sessions that were recommended by

Dr. Faitak and subsequently ordered by the court. Caseworkers and other volunteers

frequently described Kasey as angry and resistant to any instruction or assistance. Kasey has

suffered trauma in her life. She has also had previous mental-health diagnoses and was under

the protection of a guardianship until her mother died a few years before this case started.

As far as physical health, Kasey has a seizure disorder, which cannot be treated

successfully with medication. As a result, she is disabled. DHS provided, among other

things, medical assistance to Kasey by helping with scheduling and transportation and

providing a personal aide when she had her gallbladder removed. DHS also helped Kasey

with changing clothes, doing laundry, fixing eyeglasses, and other matters related to personal

hygiene, showering, and cleaning. Kasey struggled to take care of her own health and

hygiene needs independently and proactively. As the case progressed, Kasey had more

problems walking and moving, which she reported were caused by nerve damage from an

epidural. At times, Kasey was physically not able to keep up with DP. She also kept an

odd schedule and slept a lot during the middle of the day.

Throughout the case, the main issue remained the home’s environment. Court

Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) volunteers visited Kasey’s home approximately

fourteen times throughout the case. Additionally, DHS caseworkers went into the home at

least twice a week. A voluminous number of pictures of Kasey’s residence taken over the

course of the case were entered as evidence during the termination hearing. Several

witnesses with direct knowledge of the home’s condition also testified.

4
The bottom line was that Kasey was unable to maintain her home in a sanitary and

safe manner even after she moved to a clean apartment in Bentonville in December 2019.

By the end of January 2020, the floors and toilet were dirty and laundry had piled up. By

February 2020, there was a broken window and rotten food in the refrigerator. By May

2020, trash abounded, many open containers of tobacco spit were strewn about, and feces

were found in the trash can. Pictures from May 2020 also showed debris on the kitchen

floor, a dirty toilet, a messy bedroom, and an overflowing refrigerator containing a cake that

a caseworker testified had been in Kasey’s refrigerator since DP’s birthday party two months

before. And there were piles of laundry that smelled like urine.

Pictures taken from June 2020 to August 2020 showed increasing messiness and

dirtiness. In September 2020, some attempt was made to throw away expired food, but the

overall condition of the home remained the same according to DHS testimony during the

termination hearing. Other safety issues such as outlet covers and smoke alarms had not

been adequately addressed by Kasey even though she had received instruction on those

issues. According to DHS, Kasey did not have adequate supplies and had not prepared her

home well enough for DP to return, although there was some testimony that Kasey had a

crib, a blanket, and a box of diapers to prepare for DP’s return.

All visits between Kasey and DP were supervised during the case. The in-home

visitation between Kasey and DP occurred two days a week for a total of four hours a week.

This location was primarily for the convenience of DHS. Kasey is unable to drive because

of her seizures and needed transportation to the DHS office for visitation. Moving the

visitation from the DHS office in Bentonville to Kasey’s home also had the added benefit

5
of reducing Kasey’s nervousness. At the termination hearing, DHS agreed that having the

visits in the home made it better for DP and for Kasey.

During a July 2020 supervised visit in the home, DP found a rope lying around and

put it on her shoulders and around her neck. In an early September 2020 visit, DP wrapped

a shoestring connected to a toy train around her neck, and it left a mark. Pictures of these

events taken by the visitation supervisor were entered into evidence during the termination

hearing. The visitation supervisor was concerned that Kasey did not address these safety

issues during the supervised visitation and that she had to intervene to protect DP. The case

never progressed to allow Kasey unsupervised visitation with DP or a trial placement in the

home.

On 29 September 2020, which was the first day of the termination hearing, Kasey

testified that her house was clean. The circuit court received pictures that Kasey took that

day as evidence in the termination case. According to Kasey, she cleaned her home “every

day” and insisted that it was going to “stay clean.” She also agreed that Caseworker Mather

had told her she had done everything she needed to get DP back. She said that she had

learned many things through the parenting classes offered to her. Kasey also testified that

she had given birth to two other children—one in the woods in a park and one in her aunt’s

front yard—but she did not have custody of them or records of their births. She testified

that she was “too busy” to go to counseling. When asked if she had any issues that

counseling could have addressed that keep her from being a good parent to DP, Kasey

replied, “No. I think I’m a pretty good mom.”

6
In addition to the unsanitary environmental issues involved in Kasey’s upkeep of the

home, DHS caseworker Mather described Kasey’s lack of routine as problematic for caring

for a child. For example, Mather was concerned that when she arrived at the house, Kasey

would still be sleeping at noon and be extremely irritable when woken up. CASA

volunteers were also concerned about Kasey’s outbursts and hostility and Kasey’s sleeping

during visits. Lindsey McDonald, a parent educator, performed weekly visits in Kasey’s

home through a program called Healthy Families. She testified that Kasey had participated

for about a year with the program, that she had interacted appropriately, and that she missed

a few visits but no more than was typical. Mather, however, said that Kasey’s significant

other, Robert Pritchard, engaged in more parenting than Kasey did.

Caseworker Mather testified that Kasey “doesn’t really even have the umph in herself

to take care of her own needs”; Kasey had let the gallbladder issue “get way too far” before

she was forced to take care of it; and Kasey is depressed and does not seem to want to get

out of bed. She explained that Kasey would buy or pawn “luxury” items like a Nintendo

Switch, a PlayStation, and a ring when she did not fully pay her rent or have enough food.

She testified that if DHS was not in the home regularly “it would revert right back to the

way it was when we came into the picture.” Mather concluded that adoption was the best

path for permanency for DP, that there were no impediments to adoption, and that there

was a likelihood that adoptive parents could be found for DP. The CASA volunteers and

DP’s attorney ad litem, too, recommended adoption as the best plan to achieve permanency

for DP.

7
Kasey partially complied with the case plan and the circuit court’s orders throughout

the case. Nonetheless, the circuit court found that clear and convincing evidence existed

to terminate Kasey’s parental rights and that it was in DP’s best interest to do so. DP had

been out of the home for nineteen months when Kasey’s parental rights were terminated in

November 2020.

II.

We review termination-of-parental-rights cases de novo. Cheney v. Ark. Dep’t of

Hum. Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 209, 396 S.W.3d 272. But we will not reverse the circuit

court’s ruling unless its findings are clearly erroneous. Id. A finding is clearly erroneous

when, although there is evidence to support it, we are left with a definite and firm

conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. In determining whether a finding is clearly

erroneous, we give due deference to the opportunity of the circuit court to assess the

witnesses’ credibility. Id.

A circuit court’s order that terminates parental rights must be based on clear and

convincing evidence. Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286

(2001). Clear and convincing evidence is that degree of proof that will produce in the fact-

finder a firm conviction that the allegation has been established. Pratt v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum.

Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 399, 413 S.W.3d 261. Proof of only one statutory ground is sufficient

to terminate parental rights. Gossett v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 240, 374

S.W.3d 205. A circuit court must find by clear and convincing evidence that termination

is in the best interest of the juvenile, taking into consideration (1) the likelihood that the

juvenile will be adopted if the termination petition is granted and (2) the potential harm,

8
specifically addressing the effect on the health and safety of the child, caused by returning

the child to the custody of the parent. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(A)(i)–(ii) (Repl.

2020).

A. Aggravated Circumstances

The circuit court terminated Kasey’s parental rights on the failure-to-remedy ground,

the subsequent-factors ground, and the aggravated-circumstances ground. Kasey challenges

all the findings in the termination order. We affirm on the aggravated-circumstances

ground.

Aggravated circumstances means, among other things, that a determination has been

made by a judge that there is little likelihood that services to the family will result in

successful reunification. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(ix)(a)(3)(A)–(B)(i). The

circuit court in this case found there was little likelihood that services would result in

successful reunification between Kasey and DP:

[DP], was removed from the mother, Garakasa Hoggatt, on April 8,
2019, and has continued to be out of the custody of Garakasa Hoggatt for
more than twelve months. The Department has offered services to Garakasa
Hoggatt in an effort to rehabilitate her and correct the conditions that caused
removal, including foster care and provisional fictive kin placement, day care
services, extensive health assessment, transportation, medical services, home
making services, twice weekly visitation, home visits, counseling referrals,
psychological evaluations, budgeting skills, hygiene supplies, cleaning
supplies, infant supplies, Healthy Families/parenting education, deposit and
rent on a new apartment, and DNA testing. Garakasa Hoggatt has failed to
participate in those services offered by the Department designed to remedy
the circumstances that brought the juvenile into the Department’s custody so
that the child could be returned to her. The Court notes that the home in
Maysville was one of the worst the Court had ever seen. There were rodents,
cockroaches, feces on the floor, clothes everywhere, trash, rotting food, and
an unclean smell to the home. From April of 2019 until December of 2019,
the mother, Garakasa Hoggatt, did not want to leave the home and was very
resistant to moving. The Court pleaded with her to move into another

9
residence because the Maysville home could not be cleaned. The Department
and CASA attempted to clean the home and assist the family, but the mother
laid in bed and sleep [sic] while those attempts were made to assist her. When
Ms. Hoggatt finally agreed to move out of the Maysville home, the
Department assisted her with deposits and rent, helped gather home goods,
and helped Ms. Hoggatt and Mr. Pritchard move into a clean home. By the
end of the first month, the home was already declining due to the failure to
clean by Ms. Hoggatt and Mr. Pritchard. The mother was resistant to CASA
and DHS assistance and slept through visits. The home became dirty and
cluttered to the extent that it is a danger for a small child. Further, the
refrigerator continued to be filled with open and rotting food. The Court
believes that the mother probably suffers from depression, which contributed
to the dirty home, but that the mother refused to work with those offering to
help and refused to go to counseling to address any issues she might have,
both past and present. Instead, the mother slept all day and refused to keep
the home clean. Therefore, even after almost eighteen months, the
circumstances that brought the juvenile into the Department’s care had not
been remedied even with DHS and CASA pushing and shoving and doing all
they could to help her. The Court finds that the mother, Garakasa Hoggatt,
has subjected the juvenile to aggravated circumstances when this Court finds
that there is little likelihood that services to the family will result in successful
reunification.

Kasey argues that issues like having clutter, no plug ins for electrical outlets, tobacco

spit cups, and unflushed toilets do not rise to the level of neglect necessary to terminate

parental rights under our caselaw. In support of her argument, Kasey cites Morris v. Arkansas

Department of Human Services, 2019 Ark. App. 411, 586 S.W.3d 203; Bean v. Arkansas

Department of Human Services, 2017 Ark. App. 77, 513 S.W.3d 859; Gray v. Arkansas

Department of Human Services, 2013 Ark. App. 24; Browning v. Arkansas Department of Human

Services, 85 Ark. App. 495, 157 S.W.3d 540 (2004); and Dinkins v. Arkansas Department of

Human Services, 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (2001). While the environmental issues at

Kasey’s Bentonville apartment do not appear to be as severe as the ones described in the

cases cited above, each termination case must turn on its own facts, and this case has its

troublesome facts to be sure.

10
In Bean, 2017 Ark. App. 77, 513 S.W.3d 859, we affirmed the termination of parental

rights due to aggravated circumstances, among other things, because of an unsanitary home.

Although the Beans presented evidence that they had cleaned the house the day of the

termination hearing, we reasoned these overtures toward participating in the case plan were

an insufficient reason not to terminate rights. This court considered the entire history of

the case and the services provided by DHS to the Beans as well as the fact that they had

voluntarily surrendered custody of their other children to relatives. We held, “[T]he

evidence before us supports the trial court’s finding that there was little likelihood that

continued services would remedy the Beans’ circumstances and for them to sustain the

improvement to an extent acceptable to foster reunification.” Id. at 27, 513 S.W.3d at 876.

Although this case is arguably distinguishable from Bean, the core legal principle at work

remains the same: there is little likelihood that continued services would allow the parent

to sustain an improvement sufficient to result in a reunification with the child given the

record as a whole.

The court’s decision to terminate Kasey’s parental rights due to aggravated

circumstances was not clearly erroneous. The evidence supports the circuit court’s finding

that further services were not likely to result in a successful reunification within a reasonable

period of time as measured from DP’s perspective and consistent with her developmental

needs. In this case, DHS offered a litany of services to Kasey for a year and a half. Kasey’s

behavior, which impacts her ability to parent, did not improve in a meaningful way. DHS

helped Kasey escape an unlivable situation in Maysville, but she was unable or unwilling to

keep her “new” Bentonville apartment at a reasonable standard of cleanliness, or so the court

11
could reasonably conclude given the picture and testimonial evidence in the record.

Importantly, Kasey refused to obey the court’s order to go to counseling and had little

insight into how her mental struggles affect her ability to parent. In fact, she did not show

throughout the course of the case that she could be safely left alone with the young toddler.

The record did not demonstrate that it was safe to allow DP to return home more than a

year and a half into the case. There was evidence that Kasey had been unable or unwilling

to care for the other children she had. The long history of DHS workers and CASA

volunteers assisting in Kasey’s home and the high level of support and services offered to

Kasey are well documented.

The court was not clearly wrong in concluding that there was little likelihood that

offering more services to Kasey would result in a successful reunification with DP.

B. Best Interest

When reviewing best interest, time is viewed from the child’s perspective; and the

best interest of the child takes precedence at every stage of the proceedings. Burkett v. Ark.

Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2016 Ark. App. 570, 507 S.W.3d 530. Our case law is clear that even

full compliance with the case plan is not determinative; the issue is whether the parent has

become a stable, safe parent able to care for his or her child. Bailey v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum.

Servs., 2019 Ark. App. 134, 572 S.W.3d 902.

Here, the circuit court found that Kasey did not demonstrate that she was a safe,

stable parent who was able to care for her child. The court concluded that the “potential

harm on the health and safety of [DP] is great were [DP] to be returned to the custody of

the mother[.]” The decision is not clearly erroneous when the record shows that Kasey

12
failed to address her mental health through individual counseling and that she lacked the

insight to see that she needed help. She could not keep her house free of trash and other

hazards to a young toddler. Kasey responded to assistance with anger and apathy.

Additionally, Kasey was not prepared to take custody of DP in November 2020, and there

was no reasonable time frame presented of when she would be able to parent independently.

DHS demonstrated that Kasey’s home was largely an unsafe place for an unsupervised

toddler throughout the long course of this case. A child’s need for permanency and stability

may override the parent’s need for additional time to improve the parent’s circumstances.

Such is the case here.

III.

The circuit found by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the best interest of

DP to terminate Kasey’s parental rights. It concluded that Kasey had not demonstrated the

ability to protect DP and keep her safe from harm, that the potential of harm was too great

to return custody to her, that aggravated circumstances existed, and that it was in DP’s best

interest to have a safe and permanent home. This decision was not clearly erroneous given

the record before us.

Affirmed.

GRUBER and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

Dusti Standridge, for appellant.

Ellen K. Howard, Ark. Dep’t of Human Services, Office of Chief Counsel, for

appellee.

Dana McClain, attorney ad litem for minor child.

13