Anderson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2011 Ark. App. 526
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- After Katrina, DHS history with the family began in November 2005 and the children came into DHS care on a 72-hour hold March 26, 2008 due to inadequate supervision and environmental neglect after appellant left them unsupervised in a home without running water or gas and due to her positive cocaine/opiate test.
- A September 2008 psychological evaluation by Dr. Paul Deyoub diagnosed appellant as mildly mentally retarded with an IQ of 69.
- The court initially set reunification as the goal, then on March 9, 2009 changed the goal to termination and ordered intensive family services.
- DHS filed multiple petitions for termination (July 2, 2009 denial for lack of adequate services; November 6, 2009 petition; October 2010 hearings), culminating in a December 13, 2010 order terminating parental rights.
- The court found that despite substantial compliance, appellant lacked the capacity to remedy the conditions of removal and that termination was in the best interests because reunification was not feasible and adoption was likely.
- The court noted the children’ s need for permanency, the bond with appellant, the likelihood of adoption (with siblings potentially placed together), and the insufficiency of continued DHS custody without progress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grounds for termination proven by clear and convincing evidence | Wynne argues DHS failed to prove grounds. | Wynne argues appellant complied with services. | Yes; grounds proven by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Best interests support termination to achieve permanency | Appellant contends adoption unlikely and health risks minimal. | DHS argues adoption likely and continued reunification not feasible. | Yes; best interests favor termination and adoption. |
| Whether DHS made reasonable efforts to reunify | Appellant contends DHS failed to provide all services. | Court found DHS made reasonable efforts. | Yes; DHS reasonably pursued reunification. |
| Whether the trial court correctly considered adoption prospects and potential harm | Appellant asserts risk in adoption and lack of planning harm. | Court considered adoptability and forward-looking harm; adoption feasible. | Court properly weighed adoption likelihood and potential harm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Welch v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 798 (Ark. App. 2010) (clear and convincing standard; de novo review of termination decisions; best interests and grounds analysis discussed)
- Meriweather v. Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 98 Ark. App. 328 (Ark. App. 2007) (termination affirmed where parent not able to achieve permanency despite services; need for permanency emphasized)
- Wright v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 115 S.W.3d 332 (Ark. App. 2003) (parent may be terminated despite completion of case plan if capable of caring for child is not achieved)