Anderson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 501 S.W.3d 831

Child M.A. removed after a 2014 domestic-violence incident in which mother stabbed father in the child’s presence; DHS discovered drug paraphernalia and father smelled of alcohol. Emergency custody and later adjudication of dependency-neglect were entered.
Case plan required father (Harvey Anderson) to cooperate with DHS, remain drug free, submit to drug screens, complete parenting classes, and maintain safe/stable housing; reunification initially the goal.
Father had inconsistent visitation, tested positive for cocaine multiple times, left long-term inpatient rehab early, and did not maintain appropriate housing; permanency goal changed to termination/adoption in October 2015.
DHS petitioned to terminate parental rights; trial court found by clear and convincing evidence termination was in child’s best interest and proved three statutory grounds under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B): (ii)(a) willful failure to maintain meaningful contact during 12+ months out of home; (iv) abandonment; and (vii)(a) other factors subsequent to filing showing placement contrary to child’s welfare despite offered services.
Father testified he has a learning disability, limited reading/writing, and receives SSDI; he argued on appeal DHS failed to provide ADA accommodations (e.g., earlier appointment of counsel) under § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(b). Trial court found his testimony not credible, ruled his noncompliance was willful, and noted DHS cannot provide legal representation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DHS had to provide ADA accommodations under § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(b)	Anderson: he has a learning disability that substantially limits reading/writing; DHS knew or should have known and should have made reasonable accommodations to allow meaningful access to reunification services (e.g., earlier appointment of counsel).	DHS/trial court: no ADA claim was pleaded or developed; no evidence what accommodations were needed or would have changed outcome; DHS cannot provide legal counsel.	Not preserved; even on merits would not reverse — accommodations provision applies only to the (vii) ground and was not shown to alter outcome.
Whether the termination was supported by statutory grounds and best interest evidence	Implicitly argued that lack of accommodations made termination premature and services inadequate under (vii).	Trial court found clear-and-convincing evidence for three independent statutory grounds and that termination served the child’s best interest.	Affirmed: at least one unchallenged ground (ii)(a) and (iv) independently supports termination; only one ground required.
Preservation of ADA/§9-27-341(vii)(b) claim	Anderson: now asserts ADA claim on appeal.	DHS/trial court: claim was not raised or developed below (no ADA reference, no specific accommodations requested, no evidentiary support).	Claim not preserved for appellate review; counsel failed to present/identify disability or needed accommodations at trial.

Mitchell v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 430 S.W.3d 851 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013) (standard of de novo review for termination appeals)
Anderson v. Douglas, 839 S.W.2d 196 (Ark. 1992) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 947 S.W.2d 761 (Ark. 1997) (appellate review of clear-and-convincing findings)
Yarborough v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 240 S.W.3d 626 (Ark. Ct. App. 2006) (definition of clearly erroneous standard)
M.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 952 S.W.2d 177 (Ark. Ct. App. 1997) (statutory requirement for grounds plus best interest)
Harrison v. Phillips, 422 S.W.3d 188 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (preservation requirement: arguments must be raised and developed below)
Lively v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 456 S.W.3d 383 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (only one statutory ground needed to affirm termination)