Allen-Grace v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
542 S.W.3d 205
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- DHS took custody of three children (A.S., A.G.1, A.G.2) after a June 16, 2017 domestic disturbance; emergency custody petition filed June 20 and adjudication hearing July 26, 2017.
- Police and DHS investigator observed injuries to A.S. (swelling and raised red welts on face); A.S. reported appellant punched her and hit her with a candle; appellant denied the conduct.
- DHS documented an unsanitary, cluttered home with broken glass, animal waste, and limited food; photos were admitted.
- Family history: prior DHS involvement (including a true finding of sexual abuse against A.S.'s legal father), appellant had prior arrests (including an assault charge involving A.S.), and testimony that appellant used alcohol and had prescriptions (Xanax, Ambien).
- Paternal grandparents obtained legal custody of A.G.1 and A.G.2; A.S. was placed provisionally with other grandparents and was in counseling.
- Trial court adjudicated all three children dependent-neglected (finding abuse, neglect, and parental unfitness as to A.S.); appellant appealed asserting insufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | DHS/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that A.S. was abused/neglected/parentally unfit | Evidence was insufficient; appellant denied assault, contested home condition, and disputed need for mental-health services for A.S. | Testimony, injuries, home conditions, prior incidents, and credibility of witnesses support findings | Affirmed — trial court’s findings not clearly erroneous; credibility determinations deferred to trial court |
| Sufficiency of evidence that A.G.1 and A.G.2 were at substantial risk | No direct evidence that they were abused or neglected; appellant had no similar problems with them | Sibling abuse/neglect can establish substantial risk to other siblings given parental unfitness | Affirmed — sibling-risk doctrine supports adjudication of A.G.1 and A.G.2 |
| Role of witness credibility | Appellant argued her testimony and explanations should be credited | DHS relied on officer, investigator, and relatives whose testimony supported findings | Court deferred to trial court’s credibility findings; appellate court will not substitute its judgment |
| Applicable burden and standard of review | Appellant pointed to lack of expert mental-health proof for need of services | DHS noted statutory preponderance standard for adjudication and trial court’s factual findings | Affirmed — adjudication requires preponderance; appellate standard is whether findings are clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Maynard v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, 389 S.W.3d 627 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011) (standard for reversing dependency-neglect findings)
- Arkansas Dept. of Human Services v. Walker, 489 S.W.3d 214 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (deference to trial court credibility findings in dependency cases)
- Eason v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, 423 S.W.3d 138 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (abuse/neglect of one sibling can establish risk to others)
- Brewer v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, 43 S.W.3d 196 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001) (parental unfitness may justify protection of siblings absent direct injury)
- Harris v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, 470 S.W.3d 316 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (appellate court will not act as super factfinder in juvenile adjudications)