Allen v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2011 Ark. App. 288
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- DHS removed N.A. and A.A. after birth due to drug exposure; removal date December 17, 2008.
- Agreed order January 13, 2009 found probable cause, dependent-neglected status, and continued DHS custody with case-plan requirements.
- Multiple review hearings documented partial or non-compliance by Allen with case plan, including drug use and failure to secure housing, transportation, and GED.
- December 1, 2009 DHS petitioned to terminate parental rights; permanency order changed goal to adoption.
- May 12, 2010 the mother’s rights were terminated; the court initially denied father’s termination but later proceedings led to termination on September 18, 2010.
- Trial court terminated Allen’s parental rights based on failure to remedy the conditions that caused removal, finding lack of substantial compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was clear and convincing evidence Allen failed to remedy the conditions causing removal. | Allen complied in part; DHS should be bound by prior partial-compliance findings. | Allen demonstrated indifference or inability to remedy conditions; complete remedy was not shown. | Yes; termination based on failure to remedy was not clearly erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hune v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 543 (Ark. App. 2010) (termination standards; de novo review)
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (Ark. 1997) (clear and convincing standard; credibility defense)
- Meriweather v. Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 98 Ark. App. 328, 255 S.W.3d 505 (Ark. App. 2007) (termination is extreme remedy; child welfare balance)
- Gossett v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 240, 374 S.W.3d 205 (Ark. App. 2010) (single ground may support termination)
- K.C. v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 353, 374 S.W.3d 884 (Ark. App. 2010) (due process; cannot terminate for another’s conduct absent notice)
- Ratliff v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 104 Ark. App. 355, 292 S.W.3d 870 (Ark. App. 2009) (de novo review limitations on affirming grounds not pleaded)
- Smith v. Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 100 Ark. App. 74, 264 S.W.3d 559 (Ark. App. 2007) (appellate review of termination evidence)
- Camarillo-Cox v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 360 Ark. 340, 201 S.W.3d 391 (Ark. 2005) (credibility and evidentiary evaluation in termination cases)