|
|
| |
| Thu, Aug. 28, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Improvements in mental health should be considered in parental rights case, court says Thursday, May 1, 2008 Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - A Searcy County circuit judge should have considered the mental health improvements of a parent before ending her child custody rights, the state Court of Appeals said Wednesday. The appeals court reversed the lower court decision and ordered another hearing in the case of Claudia Prows, whose 5-month-old daughter was removed from her custody by the state Department of Human Services because of Prows' state of mind and for the safety of the child. After a judge ruled the child was dependent-neglected, Prows was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and paranoid schizophrenia. Prows continued to have difficulties, including not taking her medication, and visits with her child received mixed reviews from DHS officials, who later filed a petition to terminate her parental rights. Prows' doctor later corrected her medications and she began regular therapy. During the next six months her mental state improved, the court of appeals said. During a hearing in 2007, Prows' doctor testified that she was not quite ready to be a full-time parent again, but she had made a great deal of improvement in six months. He concluded she would be ready for unsupervised visits with her child in three to six months. Circuit Judge Rhonda Wood later terminated Prows' parental rights, saying the child had been out of Prows' custody for 12 months and that despite her rehabilitation and condition, the reasons for the child's removal from her home had not been corrected. Prows appealed, arguing that the judge erred by not considering her recent mental stability. The Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that state statutes did not prohibit the judge from considering the mother's current mental condition. "We recognize that evidence of parental improvement as termination becomes imminent will not outweigh other evidence demonstrating a failure to remedy the situation that caused the child to be removed in the first place. But, the circuit court should have considered and weighed the evidence about (the mother's) recent improvements," Judge D.P. Marshall wrote in the unanimous decision. |
