Amber Westbrook v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Child
584 S.W.3d 258
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- SW (born Aug. 2, 2017) was removed from Amber Westbrook’s custody Nov. 22, 2017 after SW had unexplained bruises and Westbrook tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamines, and opiates.
- SW was adjudicated dependent–neglected Jan. 2018 for parental unfitness, failure to protect, and inadequate supervision.
- Westbrook was arrested again (Mar. 18, 2018), tested positive for additional controlled substances, and was convicted Aug. 9, 2018, receiving a 120‑month prison sentence.
- DHS filed to terminate parental rights Aug. 24, 2018; the circuit court terminated Westbrook’s parental rights Dec. 4, 2018, finding multiple statutory grounds and that termination was in SW’s best interest.
- Appellate counsel filed a no‑merit brief and moved to withdraw; Westbrook filed pro se points. The Arkansas Court of Appeals granted counsel’s motion, found the appeal wholly without merit, and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Westbrook) | Defendant's Argument (DHS / Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for termination based on incarceration length (statutory ground: substantial portion of child’s life) | Possible earlier release (May 25, 2020) and rehabilitation efforts undermine the ground | Statutory ground looks to the sentence; 120‑month sentence means child would spend most of early life apart; no evidence mother would be ready if released | Upheld: incarceration ground supports termination |
| Best‑interest of the child (likelihood of adoption; potential harm) | Westbrook argues post‑conviction programs and progress while incarcerated weigh in her favor | DHS/Caseworker: child is adoptable; returning to mother poses emotional/psychological harm given instability and continued drug use | Upheld: termination in SW’s best interest |
| Timeliness of probable‑cause and adjudication orders (statutory 30‑day requirement) | Untimely orders violated statutory time limits | Court: prior precedent holds untimely entries alone do not require reversal or sanctions | Upheld: timing error not reversible error |
| Consideration of rehabilitation/after‑acquired evidence raised on appeal | Westbrook cites program completion and plans while in prison | DHS/AL: most such arguments are new on appeal or were considered and weighed at trial; appellate court will not reweigh credibility | Rejected: new arguments not a basis for reversal; trial court’s credibility findings stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Linker‑Flores v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (Ark. 2004) (procedural rules and standards for no‑merit appeals in termination cases)
- Brumley v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. 356 (Ark. 2015) (sentence length, not anticipated release date, governs whether incarceration constitutes a substantial portion of a child’s life)
- Wade v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 337 Ark. 353, 990 S.W.2d 509 (Ark. 1999) (failure to timely enter statutorily required orders does not automatically mandate reversal)