Arazola v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Child
573 S.W.3d 35
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- June 2017: Arkansas DHS placed Arazola’s three children on emergency hold after allegation by maternal aunt that Arazola’s boyfriend (Cordova) sexually abused CA; children corroborated. Guns/stolen-serial evidence and arrests followed.
- Circuit court found probable cause for removal and adjudicated the children dependent-neglected (mother failed to protect CA; admitted drug use). Reunification was initially the goal with concurrent permanent-relative custody.
- April 2018 emergency staffing arose after prosecutor’s office reported Arazola sought to lift a no-contact order so she could marry Cordova and had allowed phone contact between Cordova and the children in violation of the order. A phone transcript and other evidence showed continued contact and planning.
- Permanency-planning hearing (May 2018): DHS, CASA, and caseworker testimony described deterioration in CA’s behavior, evidence of mother’s ongoing relationship with Cordova, and supportive home study/CASA reports for grandparents (Garfiases).
- Court changed the plan to permanent-relative custody with the Garfiases for AA and CA (AF remained with aunt). Case closed and Arazola appealed challenging potential-harm and best-interest findings.
Issues
| Issue | Arazola’s Argument | DHS/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported bypassing reunification and awarding permanent-relative custody (potential-harm finding) | DHS failed to prove by a preponderance that Arazola continued relationship with Cordova after staffing; no date on call transcript; children were not removed post-violation so no imminent danger | Transcript, witness testimony, contributions to commissary, lease facts, and kids’ testimony support continued relationship and risk to children | Affirmed — court’s potential-harm finding not clearly erroneous; permissible to bypass first five statutory goals and grant permanent-relative custody |
| Whether award to grandparents was in children’s best interest | Garfiases weren’t parties or witnesses so court lacked opportunity to evaluate their fitness; evidence supporting fitness was minimal | CASA report, home study, caseworker testimony, children’s testimony, court’s evaluation supported best interest | Affirmed — appellate court will not reweigh evidence; credibility and best-interest findings left to trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 385 S.W.3d 367 (Ark. App. 2011) (burden in dependency-neglect proceedings is preponderance of the evidence)
- Churchill v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 423 S.W.3d 637 (Ark. App. 2012) (appellate review is de novo but gives deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Ashcroft v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 374 S.W.3d 743 (Ark. App. 2010) (greater deference in child custody cases for trial court’s perception of witnesses)
- Lansdell v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 502 S.W.3d 579 (Ark. App. 2016) (court may bypass reunification goals and move to permanent-relative custody if parent poses danger)
- Newman v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 489 S.W.3d 186 (Ark. App. 2016) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence; credibility is for trial court)
- McKinney v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 527 S.W.3d 778 (Ark. App. 2017) (issues without cited authority or argument may be forfeited)