Adkins v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. LEXIS 236
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- DHS removed two children (born 2006 and 2012) after reports that parents Alisha and Ernest Adkins were using drugs while caring for them; children were placed together with their paternal aunt in provisional foster care.
- Trial court adjudicated the children dependent-neglected and initially set reunification as the goal with concurrent relative placement; parents repeatedly made only minimal progress on the case plan (drug treatment, parenting classes, housing, employment).
- At the April 20, 2016 permanency-planning hearing DHS requested a goal change to termination of parental rights and adoption; testimony established the children were placed with their aunt and had extended visitation with maternal grandmother Pearl (who had positive drug screens tied to cancer treatment).
- The trial court changed the permanency goal to adoption/termination, finding among other things that the children were not being cared for by a relative and that parents had not complied with the case plan; the court declined to hold an immediate special-relative-placement hearing.
- On appeal Ernest argued the court erred under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-338(c)(4) because the children were being cared for by a relative willing to provide long-term care, and the court failed to apply the statutory preference for relative placement before ordering termination/adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly changed permanency goal to termination/adoption under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-338(c)(4) | Ernest: change was improper because children were in relative care (aunt), relatives were willing to pursue guardianship/permanent custody, so termination should not be authorized without finding termination is best or no appropriate relative placement exists | DHS: parents’ minimal compliance and best-interest findings supported goal change; court’s conclusion should be upheld | Reversed and remanded: court’s finding that children were not in relative care was clearly erroneous; court failed to apply statutory relative-placement preference and must reconsider under § 9-27-338(c)(4) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellis v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. 441, 505 S.W.3d 678 (standard of review in dependency-neglect proceedings)
- Ferguson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. App. 258, 492 S.W.3d 880 (court must consider statutory factors when relative is caring for the child)