Alissa Minchew v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children
660 S.W.3d 909
Ark. Ct. App.2023Background
- DHS removed two children in Jan 2021 after Minchew tested positive for amphetamines, methamphetamine, benzodiazepine, and marijuana and admitted drug use; children were adjudicated dependent-neglected for parental unfitness.
- Circuit court ordered reunification services and a case plan (drug treatment, random screens, counseling, stable housing/employment, supervised visitation).
- Minchew completed inpatient treatment but relapsed (hair-follicle positives), refused multiple drug screens, attended visits inconsistently, and lived with a partner raising domestic-violence concerns; a later-born child also tested positive at birth.
- DHS and the attorney ad litem filed a joint petition to terminate parental rights in Jan 2022; TPR hearing occurred June 13, 2022.
- DHS presented adoptability evidence; caseworker recommended termination based on continued drug use, noncompliance, unsafe living situation, and lack of meaningful progress.
- Trial court terminated Minchew’s parental rights; on appeal Minchew only challenged the sufficiency of the circuit court’s best-interest finding.
Issues
| Issue | Minchew's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was termination in the children’s best interest? | Progress in treatment and stable housing warranted more time; no clear evidence children would be harmed. | Children are adoptable and evidence of ongoing risk (drug relapse, missed screens, domestic-violence exposure, poor visitation) supports TPR. | Affirmed: best-interest finding supported by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Did past behavior predict potential harm so as to justify termination? | Past lapses do not prove future harm; she had made progress and sought more time. | Past conduct (positive tests, refusals, relapse, unsafe partner) may be used to predict potential harm; circuit court may rely on that. | Affirmed: past behavior and statutory-ground findings support potential-harm determination. |
| Were relatives/least-restrictive-placement options adequate to defeat TPR? | DHS failed to timely and adequately pursue relatives; guardianship with a relative was a concurrent goal. | Notices were sent but no approved relative placements existed; issue not raised below. | Affirmed: argument unpreserved; even if preserved, mere notices without approved relatives cannot defeat TPR. |
| Would TPR improperly sever sibling ties with a child in a separate case? | Termination would harm sibling relationship with the third child. | No evidence of a genuine sibling bond; issue not raised at trial. | Affirmed: unpreserved and record lacks evidence of a strong sibling bond to require reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 591 S.W.3d 824 (de novo review standard for TPR appeals)
- Lively v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 456 S.W.3d 383 (clear-and-convincing-evidence standard explained)
- Cole v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 611 S.W.3d 218 (best-interest inquiry: adoptability and potential harm factors)
- Rhine v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 386 S.W.3d 577 (perfect compliance not required; isolated lapses distinguishable)
- Suster v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 858 S.W.2d 122 (relative-notice/rights implications)
- Glover v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 577 S.W.3d 13 (appellate court will not reweigh credibility/evidence)
- Bridges v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 571 S.W.3d 506 (continued substance use as evidence of potential harm)
- Covin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 576 S.W.3d 530 (domestic-violence concerns relevant to best interest)
- Martin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 596 S.W.3d 98 (sibling-bond evidence required to reverse on sibling-separation grounds)
- Corley v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 556 S.W.3d 538 (no guarantee siblings must be adoptable together; genuine bond required for reversal)