Anderson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2011 Ark. App. 791
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Yolanda Anderson appeals a Pulaski County Circuit Court order terminating her parental rights to her son D.A.; counsel filed a no-merit brief and motion to withdraw under Rule 6-9(i).
- Anderson previously had all four of her other children voluntarily’ terminated from custody in 2006 for severe medical neglect; D.A. was not named in the 2008 termination order.
- D.A. was taken into DHS custody again on September 9, 2009 after a daycare reported a black eye; adjudicated dependent-neglected in November 2009 for abuse due to unsupervised care.
- Reunification occurred and custody was returned to Anderson in September 2010, with the 2009 case closed December 1, 2010.
- D.A. was removed again on December 3, 2010 after bruises on his face were observed; bruises were attributed to alleged kissing by Anderson and her boyfriend Marcus Monk, with credibility concerns about Anderson.
- At termination hearing (May 2011), the court found clear and convincing evidence of aggravated circumstances and that termination was in D.A.’s best interests; the court ordered termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination is supported by clear and convincing evidence | DHS argues grounds satisfied by aggravated circumstances and best interests. | Anderson contends there is insufficient evidence to terminate. | Yes; termination affirmed based on clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether aggravated circumstances were proven | DHS shows no further services would achieve reunification. | Anderson disputes likelihood of ongoing harm or need for termination. | Yes; aggravated circumstances proven (little likelihood of reunification). |
| Whether termination was in D.A.'s best interests and adoption was likely | DHS emphasizes adoptability and risk of harm if returned to Anderson. | Anderson argues continued services could suffice. | Yes; best interests and adoptability support termination. |
| Whether the court properly considered prior DHS cases via judicial notice | Anderson did not object; evidence of prior cases relevant to current case. | Not applicable; adjudicatory history supports current findings. | Not reversible; issue not preserved for appeal. |
| Credibility of Anderson and explanations for injuries | Anderson’s explanations were not credible; prior behavior shows risk. | Anderson challenges credibility but evidence supports termination. | Trial court’s credibility determinations upheld; no reversal on this basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243 (1997) (parens patriae standard in termination cases)
- Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Dinkins, 344 Ark. 207 (2001) (clear-and-convincing standard and deferential review)
- Lee v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 102 Ark.App. 337 (2008) (one-ground suffices for termination; substantial evidence standard)
- Krass v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark.App. 245 (2009) (precludes challenge to adjudication-based findings not appealed)
- Maynard v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 82 (2011) (preservation and evidentiary considerations in DHS cases)