Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 435 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-26-179 Opinion Delivered September 23, 2026 JUNE MERRYMAN AND JASON WEST APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN APPELLANTS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT V. [NO. 66FJV-24-149] ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HONORABLE SHANNON L. BLATT, HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR JUDGE CHILDREN APPELLEES AFFIRMED KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge Appellants June Merryman (June) and Jason West (Jason) (sometimes referred to herein collectively appellants) separately appeal after the Sebastian County Circuit Court filed an order terminating their parental rights to their six children, Minor Child 1 (MC1) (DOB 12-03-10), Minor Child 2 (MC2) (DOB 12-02-11), Minor Child 3 (MC3) (DOB 06- 13-13), Minor Child 4 (MC4) (DOB 06-13-13), Minor Child 5 (MC5) (DOB 09-07-17), and Minor Child 6 (MC6) (DOB 05-04-23). On appeal, June argues that the circuit court clearly erred in finding that termination was in the children’s best interest. Jason argues that (1) the circuit court clearly erred in finding that statutory grounds existed to support the termination; (2) the circuit court clearly erred in finding that the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) complied with court orders and engaged in reasonable and active efforts to provide services; and (3) the circuit court’s findings in its fifteen-month review order were clearly erroneous. We affirm. I. Relevant Facts On April 12, 2024, and on April 15, 2024, DHS filed a petition for emergency custody and a petition for dependency-neglect of the children. In the affidavit attached to the petition, a family-service worker (FSW) averred that she believed the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) applied because June reported Indian heritage with the Choctaw Tribe. DHS became involved after it had received a call from the Barling Police Department. The police officer who performed the welfare check reported that June seemed paranoid and stated strange things, so the FSW visited the home. MC2 reported to the FSW that she and her siblings had to work for their own food and prepare it because June does not give them any food. She also stated that June does not like her and that she believed June was hurting her siblings. The children expressed being nervous and scared when left home alone for several hours. MC4 reported that June hit her across the face the previous week, and MC2 reported that June picks fights with them, which results in fistfights. The children further explained that their mother drinks a lot, their parents fight in the home, and the police are at their home a lot. Some of the children stated that they do not feel safe with their mother and that they had previously been in foster care when they lived in South Carolina and Arizona due to their parents’ fighting and lack of food. June reported that her home was going into foreclosure and that they would not have a home because Jason lost his job and was not paying the bills. The FSW averred that June 2 appeared to be under the influence of alcohol, although the alcohol swab was negative. June tested positive for buprenorphine and benzodiazepines, but June had prescriptions for those medications. The house was dirty, and there was not enough food to feed six children. Jason was incarcerated in the Benton County jail for violating a no-contact order. DHS exercised a seventy-two-hour hold due to concerns that the caregiver’s mental instability, developmental status, or cognitive deficiency seriously impaired the caregiver’s ability to supervise, protect, or care for the children. The circuit court granted the petition for emergency custody on April 15, 2024, finding that there was probable cause to believe that the children were dependent-neglected and that it was contrary to their welfare to remain in the parents’ custody. A probable-cause order was filed on April 29, 2024. The court found that probable cause existed and continued to exist, requiring that the children remain in the custody of DHS. After DHS gave notice of the custody proceedings to the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (Choctaw Nation), the Choctaw Nation responded and verified that all six children were eligible for enrollment in the Choctaw Nation and that June was already an enrolled member. Accordingly, the Choctaw Nation filed its notice of intervention, and the circuit court filed an order acknowledging and accepting its intervention as permitted under the ICWA on May 31, 2024. An adjudication order was subsequently filed on June 21, 2024. June stipulated and the circuit court found that the children were dependent-neglected on the basis of parental unfitness. Although the circuit court found Jason to be the nonoffending parent, the circuit 3 court found that he was unfit for custody or placement due to his incarceration. The circuit court found that the allegations in the petition and accompanying affidavit were substantiated by the proof. The circuit court further found that on the basis of the qualified expert testimony regarding ICWA compliance, the children should remain in DHS’s custody because their return “would result in severe physical or emotional harm to the child.” The circuit court also found that, although the children’s current placement was not ICWA compliant because a home was unavailable, “there is currently good cause to deviate from an ICWA compliant placement” and that DHS had made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. DHS was ordered to continue to make active efforts to reunify the family and to locate an ICWA compliant placement. The circuit court set the goal of case as reunification, and DHS was given discretion regarding visitation. The parents were ordered to follow the case plan, including the following services identified for each parent: [S]ervices identified for June Merryman include: counseling (family), counseling (individual), domestic violence education, drug assessments, drug screening, employment services, family time, hair follicle testing, housing, legal services, mental health services (outpatient), parenting – nurturing the families of Arkansas, parenting skills, and psychological evaluations; and services for Jason West include: Counseling (family), counseling (individual), domestic violence education, drug assessments, drug screening, employment services, family time, housing, legal services, parenting skills, DNA testing, and transportation. On July 15, 2024, the circuit court held a review hearing, and an order was filed on July 23, 2024. The circuit court continued the goal of reunification. It found that DHS had complied with the case plan and court orders, made reasonable efforts to provide family services and finalize a permanency plan for the children, and made active efforts. It ordered 4 DHS to discuss the case with Jason and to be sure he is aware of the case plan and requirements. On August 26, 2024, the circuit court held a second review hearing, and an order was filed on September 3, 2024. Jason was specifically found in this order to be the father of all six children. The circuit court continued the goal of reunification and found the parents in compliance with the case plan. Additionally, it ordered the parents to comply with the case plan and court orders, to cooperate with the DHS and service providers, to visit the juveniles regularly and be appropriate at those visits, and to provide DHS notice of any change in their circumstances. The circuit court further found that DHS had complied with the case plan and the orders and made reasonable and active efforts to achieve the goals of the case and permanency for the children. On October 7, 2024, the circuit court held a third review hearing, and an order was filed on October 14, 2024. The circuit court again continued the goal of reunification, found the parents compliant with the case plan, and ordered the parents to comply with the case plan and court orders, to cooperate with the DHS and service providers, to visit the juveniles regularly and be appropriate at those visits, and to provide DHS notice of any change in their circumstances. The parents thereafter filed a joint motion for trial home placement on December 6, 2024. Both DHS and the attorney ad litem filed responses disagreeing with the parents’ contention that a trial home placement was in the children’s best interest. 5 On February 24, 2025, the circuit court held a fourth review hearing. At this hearing, the circuit court continued the goal of reunification and ordered that the parents begin unsupervised visitation with their children. The circuit court ordered that the parents be granted four hours of unsupervised visitation the following two Fridays, followed by unsupervised visitation the following two Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., followed by two weekends of unsupervised visitation from Friday through Sunday. The parents were additionally ordered in relevant part to sign a release of information for medical and mental- health records, obtain Jason’s birth certificate, attend grief counseling,1 participate in the reconsideration of the children’s IEPs, provide DHS proof of a valid driver’s license, and provide DHS with proof of car insurance. DHS was ordered to make all necessary referrals within forty-eight hours, assist Jason in obtaining his birth certificate if needed, make a referral for grief counseling, follow up on the reconsideration of the children’s IEPs, make the parents aware of all medical and dental appointments, provide the parents with a schedule of the children’s extracurricular activities, make a referral for family counseling within forty-eight hours, and fill out the necessary forms for MC4 to get a second medical opinion at the Choctaw Nation Medical Clinic. On March 15, 2025, DHS and the attorney ad litem filed an emergency motion to modify visitation. They explained that the parents had not provided a valid driver’s license and that the two unsupervised visits had not gone well. The children were upset at the last 1 The parents had another child who died before this dependency-neglect case. 6 visit because June demanded that the children go into the bathroom “to check them because she knew DHS was recording the visits.” June also caused such a disturbance at MC4’s medical appointment that she had been asked to leave the exam room. Moreover, June had accused the caseworker and the children’s therapist of being inappropriately interested in Jason. Accordingly, DHS and the attorney ad litem asked that the parents’ visitation be supervised. On March 21, 2025, the parents filed a joint answer generally denying the allegations in the emergency motion to modify visitation. Although they admitted that June had been asked to leave the examination room at MC4’s medical appointment, they alleged that it was not because of a disturbance but because “the Doctor did not like [June] questioning his decisions.” On April 14, 2025, the circuit court held a permanency-planning hearing; an order was filed on May 13, 2025; and an amended order was filed on June 10, 2025, to correct the stated burden of proof. After this hearing, the circuit court set a goal of reunification with a concurrent goal of adoption. The circuit court ordered that DHS had discretion as to visitation and the discretion to begin any trial home placement upon the approval of the attorney ad litem. It further ordered the parents to comply with the case plan and orders of the court. On July 4, 2025, the parents filed a joint motion for trial home placement. They alleged that they had “made substantial strides and [had] completed all requirements of the case plan.” They further alleged that they had concerns about the health and welfare of the 7 children in DHS’s custody and made a maltreatment report to the Fort Smith Police Department. They alleged that the children were being transported by someone who smoked marijuana and used an inappropriate vehicle for the number of passengers she was transporting; a doctor had found one of the children to be malnourished; a foster placement took Life360 off the children’s phones to prohibit them from tracking the children’s location; and one of the children put an Apple tracking device in June’s purse at the direction of one of the foster parents. Accordingly, they asked that the children be immediately placed back in their care. On July 5, 2025, the parents also filed a joint petition to hold DHS in contempt. They alleged that DHS had failed to start a trial home placement despite the fact that a pending maltreatment investigation against them ended and resulted in “unsubstantiated findings”; DHS had failed to provide them “CHRIS notes” as requested; DHS had “interfered with [their] visitation rights”; DHS had failed to provide them with information regarding the children’s activities and appointments; and DHS scheduled supervised visitation for a day that Jason works and cannot attend. DHS filed separate responses to the motion for trial home placement and the petition for contempt on July 11, 2025. In addition to addressing the parents’ specific allegations listed in the parents’ motion for trial home placement and explaining why they were either inaccurate or did not warrant immediate placement of the children with the parents, DHS alleged that trial home placement was 8 not appropriate due to ongoing safety concerns, the need for further evaluation, parent stability and recent changes in visitation status. Trial home placement decisions are not solely based on the completion of services but must include a current, comprehensive safety analysis. It remains the Department’s position [that] the best interests of the children will not currently be served by returning [the children] to the custody of the Defendants without further observation, medical evaluation, individual counseling, grief counseling, additional visitation progress with Triple P parenting, and confirmation of sustained parental stability and engagement. In its response to the petition for contempt, DHS generally denied that it had willfully or intentionally violated any court order. It further contested the parents’ contention that they had made substantial strides in this case. Accordingly, DHS asked that both the motion and petition be denied. On July 18, July 25, and September 8, 2025, the circuit court held a fifteen-month review hearing, and an order was filed on September 16, 2025. After the hearing, the circuit court continued the previous goals and found that the return of the children to the parents would result in severe physical or emotional harm. The circuit court also found that neither parent was compliant with the case plan. Regarding June, it found that she refused to participate in any further services, failed to complete parenting and domestic-violence classes in compliance with the case plan, and fired her therapist and refused any referrals for additional therapists. Regarding Jason, the court found that he lived in a two-bedroom apartment with June and June’s mother, recently changed employment, had not attended counseling since mid-July 2025, and failed to complete parenting and domestic-violence classes in compliance with the case plan. Additionally, the circuit court found that DHS had made active and reasonable efforts in the case and corrected any scrivener’s errors in its 9 previous orders regarding the proper burden of proof. It ordered the parents to cooperate with DHS; maintain stable housing, employment, and transportation; maintain contact with DHS; allow DHS access to their home; comply with the case plan and court orders; and complete parenting and domestic-violence classes and provide DHS with certificates of completion. It prohibited any recordings during family time or the use of corporal punishment. Further, the circuit court denied the parents’ motion for trial home placement and ordered that their visits be limited to supervised therapeutic visitation. DHS filed a petition for the termination of parental rights on September 26, 2025, alleging several grounds for termination against appellants under Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-35-325(b)(3)(B) (Supp. 2025) (formerly Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27- 341(b)(3)(B)), including the failure-to-remedy, other-subsequent-factors, and aggravated- circumstances grounds. June’s counsel was permitted to withdraw from the case, and June chose to proceed pro se. Although the circuit court filed orders addressing numerous pro se motions that June filed, it is unnecessary to discuss them to resolve the issues raised on appeal. On October 21, 2025, the circuit court filed an order clarifying visitation and stated the following: 5. It was the intention of the Court and is the Court’s clarified ruling that the parents, June Merryman and Jason West, shall have the statutory four (4) hours of visitation per week with all the minor children in this case. In the event that the therapists do not provide four (4) hours of therapeutic family time in a week, the Department shall make arrangements for family time for the parents and children so that there is at least a total family time of four (4) hours per week. For example, if the therapists conduct only one (1) hour of therapeutic family time in a week, the 10 Department shall make arrangements for three (3) hours family time for that week, so that the parents and children shall have a total family time of not less than four (4) hours per week. 6. The Department shall make up any and all missed visitation that has not been provided to the parents for all time that the parents did not receive the aforesaid four (4) hours per week. 7. All visitation shall be supervised. The parents are allowed to talk with the children outside the presence of the therapists when the parents are in supervised visitation that is supervised by someone other than the therapists. 8. The Orders of this Court do not give the Western Arkansas Counseling and Guidance Center therapists or any other therapists any authority to alter, amend, reduce or otherwise curtail the amount of time that the parents herein are awarded under the Orders of this Court to visit with their children. The therapists have authority to limit the amount of time that they conduct their supervised therapeutic family time, but the Department must make arrangements for the parents and children to have additional supervised family time that is not taken up by the therapists’ therapeutic family time so that the parents have the statutory minimum four (4) hours family time per week. The attorney ad litem subsequently filed a motion and an amended motion to suspend the parents’ supervised therapeutic family time. In support of this motion, the attorney ad litem alleged that June had made threats and called the police during the visits, which caused the children significant stress and anxiety. Despite the court’s previous order prohibiting recordings, June and Jason had continued to record visits, causing the children discomfort, anxiety, and a regression in therapy. In fact, a therapist was contacted on November 10, 2025, to conduct an emergency telehealth session after MC3 expressed suicidal ideations. Additionally, the attorney ad litem included letters from the children’s therapists that recommended that the visits be terminated due to the safety concerns and continued trauma being inflicted on the children during those sessions. 11 On November 14, 2025, the circuit court entered an ex parte order suspending family time and setting an emergency hearing for November 19, 2025. On November 19 and December 1, 2025, the circuit court held a hearing on the motion to suspend family time, and an order was filed on December 15, 2025. In its order, the circuit court found that continued contact with the parents would endanger the physical, mental, and emotional health of the four oldest female children, MC1, MC2, MC3, and MC4. As a result, the circuit court suspended the parents’ visits with these four children. Regarding the two youngest male children, MC5 and MC6, the circuit court ordered that the parents could continue supervised therapeutic visitation or DHS-supervised visitation for a total of three hours a week. DHS was permitted to initiate or increase any visitation between the parents and MC1, MC2, MC3, and MC4 only with the approval of the attorney ad litem and the Choctaw Nation representative. The circuit court further provided that if the parents informed DHS that their home is ready, DHS was ordered to initiate the ICPC process on the parents’ home. On December 15 and 22, 2025, the circuit court held a termination-of-parental-rights hearing. At the termination hearing, Kristin McAnally, the DHS program assistant assigned to the case to supervise family time, testified that she had supervised at least twenty visits. She explained that June had exhibited some concerning behaviors during family time. June would excessively record the children and look for bruising or anything that she suspected was a sign of abuse. June further made inaccurate allegations that the children were being abused, trafficked, and coached by DHS. Ms. McAnally testified that although she did not 12 have any initial concerns with Jason’s behavior around the children, she later observed Jason throw his phone down onto a table after he was asked to put his phone away during a supervised therapeutic visitation. She also saw Jason take MC5 by the arm when Jason wanted MC5 to take a timeout and heard Jason raise his voice at the children on other occasions. Ms. McAnnally testified that she did not notice any improvement in the parents’ behavior as visitation progressed and provided several examples of concerning behaviors she observed during visitations. Ms. McAnally explained that there was a visit in July 2025 at the mall. MC5 was not feeling well and began throwing up, and June blocked Ms. McAnally and another worker from helping with the situation, stating that she was the mother and she would deal with it. Jason told MC5 to breathe, and the family ate some pizza after MC5 started to feel better. June thereafter contacted EMS and the police stating that MC5 had not eaten and was living in an abusive situation with a child molester. Ms. McAnally explained that MC5 had not eaten before the visit because he was in court all day and was nervous because June had wanted MC5 to testify at that hearing. June was belligerent, and EMS had to tell June to back up and move away to allow them to assess MC5. The visit was terminated because of June’s erratic behavior. In June 2025, Ms. McAnnally took the children to McDonald’s for visitation with the parents. MC3 complained that she was not feeling well and that her stomach hurt. Ms. McAnnally took MC3 to the emergency room with the parents. Jason stayed in the waiting room with the other children, and Ms. McAnnally and June stayed with MC3 during the 13 examination. June immediately started making false accusations about malnutrition. MC3 was not diagnosed with malnutrition but was diagnosed with strep throat on that occasion. During another visit in July 2025, there was an altercation in which June was recording and calling Ms. McAnnally names. Other than telling June to stop, Jason did not try to intercede or help the situation. Ms. McAnnally asked June to hand MC6 to her, and June refused and walked toward the door with MC6. Because Ms. McAnnally thought June was going to leave with MC6, she called the police. All the children were upset. At the last visitation, the older girls did not want to be around June or Jason. However, June kept following them, and the visitation “exploded from there.” The visitation ended, and Ms. McAnnally remembered it being “very chaotic . . . to get out of the vicinity of June and Jason with the children safely.” Because of her observations, Ms. McAnnally thought any visitation still needed to be supervised, and she expressed her opinion that the children should not be returned to their parents. She did not think that Jason had benefited from the services he received and was instead supportive of June and her actions. She explained that by the end of the case, the children “dreaded” going to visits. Ms. McAnally could see their anticipation and anxiety. She did not see either parent attempt to “de-escalate the children’s distress” or give them either physical or verbal comfort when they were upset. Both parents had left the children unattended during a visit. Even when Ms. McAnally attempted to redirect the parents, they would not follow her instructions. Instead, June would get upset, and the visit would end. 14 Kristin Hill, the assigned DHS case supervisor, testified as to the case history as already outlined herein. Ms. Hill explained that in the beginning of the case, June was afraid of Jason and concerned about the domestic violence that had occurred in the home. At one point, June moved out of the home and had asked that her location not be shared with Jason. Ms. Hill testified that DHS offered the following services to June: counseling, maintaining housing, income, transportation, employment, a driver’s license, domestic- violence education, drug-and-alcohol assessment, random drug screens and hair-follicle tests, family time, a psychological evaluation, and family counseling. She stated that DHS offered the following services to Jason: maintaining housing, income, transportation, a valid driver’s license, family counseling, domestic-violence education, individual counseling, parenting education, and family time. However, neither parent fully complied with the case plan or court orders. Ms. Hill stated that she had attempted to set up a visit the previous weekend with MC5 and MC6; however, the parents would not confirm the visit. They had asked for transportation, but they had moved three hours away to Coalgate, Oklahoma. She offered them gas cards, but the parents refused them, stating that it would be too much wear and tear on their one vehicle. June had a psychological evaluation performed in October of 2024. The report recommended that June receive substance-abuse treatment, and her symptoms were consistent with personality disorder, bipolar disorder, and PTSD. Although June was ordered to complete an updated psychological evaluation and a psychiatric evaluation after 15 the fifteen-month review hearing and a referral was made for the second psychological evaluation on September 19, 2025, June refused to go and stated that doing too many evaluations in a short time frame was not good for her mental health. Ms. Hill explained that the parents attended counseling sporadically and that they picked their own providers. In a July 9, 2025, note, the counselor’s records stated, It is recommended that [June] see a psychiatrist or a psychiatric nurse practitioner for medication evaluation, get a psychological evaluation to access for an accurate mental health diagnosis. For example, bipolar with or without psychotic features versus schizophrenia disorder and bipolar type versus schizophrenia, in home supportive services if available for the family when the children are there for visits, family sessions with the children at the agency that provides the treatment. The note went on to state, “I did try to challenge some other delusional beliefs during our last session, but she dismissed them and reiterated her beliefs . . . her current belief that I am being harassed by DHS and/or CASA may hinder her willingness to continue working with me.” June eventually terminated her relationship with the counselor on July 15, 2025. Ms. Hill had not received any proof that June had continued individual counseling with anyone else. She was did not know whether Jason had continued with any individual counseling. The case plan specified a place that was designated for the parenting and domestic- violence classes. However, the parents did not complete those classes through the identified provider. Instead, the parents took parenting classes in another county. That said, Ms. Hill was never given any certificates of completion from those programs. Although the parents were asked to take domestic-violence classes separately, it was her understanding that the 16 parents took classes together. DHS requested that the parents take the Triple P parenting program, but they refused. Ms. Hill did not believe the parents exhibited anything they had learned from any parenting classes “due to the continued paranoia, the lack of protective parenting, the unsafe behaviors, [and] the lack of engagement.” After the fifteen-month review hearing, Ms. Hill encouraged June to attend the family sessions and complete the case plan, including Triple P and domestic-violence classes. However, June said she would not do any more services for DHS and would find her own services. She did not trust DHS. The parents first notified Ms. Hill that they had moved to Oklahoma on October 24, 2025. DHS had not been able to “verify transportation, driver’s license, registration of cars, etc., in the state of Oklahoma.” The parents further did not provide any updated driver’s licenses or proof of employment. Except for a couple of pictures that the parents sent, DHS had not seen the home. Further, even though the fifteen-month review order stated that the parents should ask for a home study if they moved, they still had not done so. Regardless, Ms. Hill stated that the parents were offered transportation and gas cards and provided information to set up appointments. Ms. Hill testified that despite DHS’s offer of services and providing redirection, June still struggled with showing positive interaction in front of her children and with DHS. She explained that there had been difficult interactions. June still exhibited concerning behaviors of “paranoia, delusional statements, unfounded accusations, and inability to regulate emotions.” In fact, Ms. Hill had taken over direct communications with the parents because of June’s erratic behavior and the difficulty in dealing with both parents. Ms. Hill 17 observed two visitations with the children. She said that June struggled to parent her children on one of those visits. The children were distracted and running into different rooms, but June could not bring the children back together. Ms. Hill testified that she was concerned that Jason and June were still living together and thought Jason’s living situation impacted his ability to reunite with the children. She explained that DHS needed evidence of “safe, stable parenting and emotional stability in meeting the children’s needs,” which had not been shown. She had concerns about Jason’s “quiet withdrawal, . . . lack of engagement, and reinforce[ment of] the mother’s unsafe behaviors[,] and statements also distress[ing] the children.” Thus, Ms. Hill testified that DHS “still has concerns and is still worried about the emotional and physical well-being of the children due to the parents’ inability to adequately supervise and protect the children due to mental instability and the inability to adequately parent the children.” She did not think the children should be returned to their parents. The parents were currently suspended from visiting their older children, and one of the children even engaged in self-harm. Ms. Hill further testified that there were not any other services available to the parents that DHS had not yet provided to help achieve successful reunification. She explained that because Jason had “not show[n] protective parenting due to the mother’s unsafe behaviors that cause distress to the children[,] . . . there [was] no reasonable likelihood that continuing to offer services to Jason West is likely to rehabilitate this parent or achieve the goal of reunification.” Ms. Hill stated that the children are adoptable. She explained, “They’re a sibling group of six. There are a few homes that are able to adopt them. Big sibling groups like 18 that, we don’t have very many, but we do have some. They’re all great kids, and . . . we will not have any issues with their adoptability.” Accordingly, Ms. Hill opined that adoption was the permanency plan that was in the best interest of the children. Therefore, DHS recommended adoption following the termination of parental rights on the basis that serious and emotional harm to the children would occur if they were returned to the parents. On cross-examination, Ms. Hill admitted that she could not find if and when a referral had been made for Jason to undergo a psychological evaluation. Accordingly, she agreed that because she could not prove that a referral had been made, any failure to complete one should not be held against Jason. Ms. Hill further admitted that DHS was ordered to help Jason obtain his driver’s license by helping him obtain his birth certificate. However, she explained that Jason had failed to come to the office for the assistance that was offered. Ms. Hill acknowledged that an investigation had revealed that MC6 had been abused by an “unknown offender” while in DHS’s custody and that he had immediately been removed from that placement thereafter. She further acknowledged that Jason had been employed at two different jobs during the pendency of the case before he had moved to Oklahoma. That said, Ms. Hill testified that Jason had indicated in a recent text that he was looking for a job. Although the parents had not asked for a home study, Ms. Hill testified that a home study had been requested two weeks before the termination hearing because they take so long to complete. Jane Merryman, June’s mother, testified that she had been living with June when June lived in Barling, Arkansas. Jane testified that she thought June took good care of the 19 children, kept the home clean, and had food for the children. Jane did not believe her daughter is “crazy” or “delusional.” She further testified that she thought some of the children were being abused while in DHS’s custody and that the children were being coached to cover it up. She also claimed that she had been threatened outside the courtroom by someone she did not know but was with the children. Four of the children testified at the termination hearing. MC1 said that she did not want to return home to her parents. She acknowledged that there was a possibility that she would not be adopted with her siblings as a group; nevertheless, she did not want to return home. She explained that she and her siblings had been in foster care several times and that nothing seemed to change. She further explained that when she had lived with her parents, there were incidents of dog attacks, domestic violence, and roaches in the home. She believed that it would only get worse if she was returned to her parents’ care. MC1 testified that Jason would not protect her or her siblings from June and that Jason would also hit them. MC1 denied that DHS had manipulated, gaslighted, or encouraged her to go against her parents. MC2 similarly testified that she did not want to return home to her parents because of the alcohol issues, the hitting, and the chaos. She also acknowledged that there was a possibility that she would not be adopted with her siblings as a group. She had not seen any change in her parents over the past year and did not have any faith in their ability to change. MC2 described numerous incidents of domestic violence and abuse toward her and her siblings that had occurred in the home when she lived with her parents. MC2 admitted that 20 she had been diagnosed with depression when she lived with her parents and that she recently went to a mental-health facility for self-harm and suicidal ideations and was on medication. MC3 admitted that she had mixed feelings about the visits with her parents being suspended. Although she testified that she would be sad if she was not adopted with her siblings, she did not want to be returned to her parents because her mom hit her dad “way too much,” there was “way too much drama,” and she was tired of having to be subsequently returned to foster care after being returned to her parents. MC4 testified that she liked living with her parents, did not want to be adopted, and wanted to move back home. Blair Christenberry, an employee of the Choctaw Nation with the Indian Child Welfare Program, was designated as an expert witness for purposes of ICWA without objection. She testified that it was the tribe’s opinion that continued custody by either parent would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the children. She explained that the children were in two separate placements and that both placements were meeting the children’s needs. Ms. Christenberry testified that the tribe was of the opinion that DHS had made active efforts to explore relatives for ICWA compliant homes for possible placement; however, no family had been located, and the tribe believed there was good cause to deviate due to no familial or tribal placements open at the time. She further testified that it was the tribe’s opinion that DHS had made active efforts to reunify the family to prevent the breakup of the family and that those efforts had not proved successful. When 21 asked her opinion about whether it was in the children’s best interest to terminate parental rights, Ms. Christenberry testified that there was evidence