Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 391 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CA 10-45 TINA FOSTER Opinion Delivered May 5, 2010 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE OUACHITA V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. JV 2008-93] ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HONORABLE LARRY W. HUMAN SERVICES CHANDLER, JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED COURTNEY HUDSON HENRY, Judge By an order dated October 7, 2009, the Ouachita County Circuit Court terminated the parental rights of appellant Tina Foster to her three children. On appeal, appellant’s attorney has filed a motion to be relieved as counsel pursuant to the decision in Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(i), asserting that there are no issues of arguable merit to support an appeal. Counsel’s motion is accompanied by a brief listing all adverse rulings made at the termination hearing and explaining why there is no meritorious ground for reversal. The clerk of this court sent a copy of counsel’s motion and brief to appellant at her last known address, informing her that she had the right to file pro se points for reversal. The post office attempted to deliver the packet but that effort proved unsuccessful. Consequently, appellant has not responded with a list of points on appeal.
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 391 Our review of the record reveals that the children were removed from appellant’s custody after appellant abandoned the youngest child, who was being treated for a brain disease at Arkansas Children’s Hospital. Appellant waived her right to an adjudication hearing, and the trial court found the children to be dependent-neglected. See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(18) (Repl. 2009) & Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-327 (Repl. 2009). The trial court subsequently entered an order terminating reunification services on grounds of aggravated circumstances. See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(47)(C)(i). Thereafter, the trial court terminated appellant’s parental rights, finding the existence of two grounds and concluding that termination was in the children’s best interests. See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3) (Repl. 2009). From our review, we find that counsel has complied with the rule regarding no-merit appeals, and we also conclude that the appeal is wholly without merit. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to be relieved and affirm the termination order. Affirmed; motion granted. G LADWIN and BROWN, JJ., agree. -2-
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.