Anderson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2011 Ark. App. 522
Ark. Ct. App.2011Background
- Andersons appeal a November 29, 2010 permanency-planning order awarding permanent custody of their three children to relative Natasha Northweather.
- Case began July 1, 2009 when J.A.(2) suffered a high‑force arm injury; DHS emergency holds removed J.A.(1) and J.A.(2) and placed them with Northweather, goal of reunification.
- A.A. was born January 31, 2010 and placed with Northweather; court found environmental neglect and imminent danger and ordered services while pursuing reunification.
- Permanency-hearings were repeatedly continued; the November 1, 2010 hearing culminated in a finding that reunification could not occur within a time frame that served the children’s best interests.
- Statutory framework used included Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-338(c) (priorities for permanency goals) and § 9-27-359 (fifteen-month review conditions).
- Court concluded DHS had made reasonable efforts and that permanent custody to a relative was in the children’s best interests; Andersons’ appeal challenges the statutory prioritization and service adequacy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court followed the statutory permanency-goal priorities. | Andersons say reunification should be preferred when progress is shown. | Court correctly applied § 9-27-338(c) prioritizing permanence with relatives when timely reunification is unlikely. | Yes; court properly applied the statute and ordered permanent custody. |
| Whether evidence supports permanent custody to a relative as in the children’s best interest. | Andersons complied with case plan and showed progress toward reunification. | Despite progress, children’ well-being and need for ongoing counseling favored permanent custody. | Yes; the record supports best interests favoring relative custody. |
| Whether DHS failed to provide meaningful services or delayed services affecting outcomes. | Delays and service gaps undermined reunification potential. | The record shows DHS offered services; lack of timely referrals does not warrant reversal. | No reversible error; prior reasonable-efforts findings not challenged on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Judkins v. Duvall, 97 Ark.App. 260 (Ark. App. 2007) (appellate review deference in dependency-neglect cases)
- Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. McDonald, 80 Ark.App. 104 (Ark. App. 2002) (standard of review and deference to circuit court credibility)
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207 (Ark. 2001) (clear-error standard in dependency-neglect decisions)
- Fredrick v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 104 (Ark. App. 2010) (preclusion of reviewing time periods covered by prior orders)
- Edwards v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 739 (Ark. App. 2010) (review limitations and timing in dependency cases)
- Bryant v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 390 (Ark. App. 2011) (reversal standards when not properly argued below)