Allen v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2017 Ark. App. 489
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In Oct. 2015, Kristin Allen brought her unresponsive 2‑year‑old (K.A.) to the ER; tests showed cocaine and PCP, and DHS took emergency custody of K.A. and her older son S.A.
- Children were adjudicated dependent‑neglected in Dec. 2015; reunification plan required drug treatment, parenting classes, counseling, psychological evaluation, random screens, stable housing/employment, and cooperation with DHS.
- Allen had a trial home placement but it ended after her arrest for possession of controlled substances and paraphernalia; she repeatedly relapsed during the case and had new drug‑related charges.
- Permanency goal changed to adoption in Sept. 2016; DHS petitioned to terminate Allen’s parental rights and a termination hearing was held Nov. 22, 2016.
- Allen testified she had recent and repeated methamphetamine use, had not completed residential treatment, was attempting treatment at the time of the hearing, and requested more time; DHS presented testimony on the children’s adoptability and circumstances of the initial drug exposure.
- The circuit court found statutory grounds for termination and that termination was in the children’s best interest (citing adoptability and consideration of potential harm) and entered a termination order Jan. 30, 2017; Allen appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Allen) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court considered potential‑harm factor in best‑interest analysis | Court focused only on adoptability and did not properly consider potential harm from returning children to Allen | Court’s oral ruling and written order show it considered potential harm; not required to identify specific harm | Court held order sufficiently shows potential‑harm was considered and affirmed |
| Whether Allen’s drug addiction alone is insufficient to show potential harm | Continued drug use alone cannot automatically establish potential harm; she needed more time to rehabilitate | Continued, recent drug use shows potential harm and undermines reunification prospects | Court held ongoing drug use supports potential‑harm consideration and justification for termination |
| Whether Allen was entitled to more time before termination | Requested continuance to complete treatment and seek reunification | Child’s need for permanency outweighs further delay where return cannot occur in a reasonable time | Court held denial of continuance not erroneous given children’s need for stability and Allen’s lack of timetable for rehabilitation |
Key Cases Cited
- Lively v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 456 S.W.3d 383 (Ark. App. 2015) (standard of review and DHS burden in termination cases)
- Martin v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 515 S.W.3d 599 (Ark. 2017) (circuit court need not identify a specific potential harm to consider potential‑harm factor)
- Reid v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 380 S.W.3d 918 (Ark. 2011) (best‑interest factors need not be proved by clear and convincing evidence)
- Jackson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 503 S.W.3d 122 (Ark. App. 2016) (continued parental drug use demonstrates potential harm)
- Davis v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 370 S.W.3d 283 (Ark. App. 2009) (drug use relevant to termination and potential harm findings)
- Carroll v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 148 S.W.3d 780 (Ark. App. 2004) (parental substance abuse as factor in termination decisions)