Austin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 428 S.W.3d 573

DHS removed S.A. (born Dec. 4, 2007) after an anonymous tip and found the child exhibiting failure-to-thrive, developmental delays, and poor hygiene; parents used methamphetamine.
S.A. was adjudicated dependent-neglected on Jan. 4, 2011; reunification was initially the goal, later changed to adoption.
DHS filed to terminate parental rights in Feb. 2012; court denied termination as to Leonard in May 2012 to allow more time for services.
A second termination petition was filed Oct. 3, 2012; at the Nov. 5, 2012 hearing, evidence showed Leonard’s unstable housing and employment, outstanding Arizona warrants, inconsistent drug testing (including a positive THC test), lack of completed background packets for household members, lack of a valid driver’s license, and anger-management concerns.
Trial court terminated Leonard’s parental rights (order entered Dec. 3, 2012), finding termination in S.A.’s best interest and that two statutory grounds were proved: (1) juvenile out of custody 12+ months and conditions not remedied despite meaningful efforts, and (2) subsequent factors arose making return contrary to child’s health/safety despite services.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Leonard)	Defendant's Argument (DHS)	Held
Best interest — potential harm on return	Returning S.A. would not be potentially harmful; adoptability unchallenged	Leonard’s unstable housing, household members with criminal/drug histories, positive drug test, lack of transportation/stable employment, outstanding warrants, and failure to complete home-study materials create potential harm	Court: DHS proved potential harm; termination was in child’s best interest
Statutory ground — 12+ months out/failure to remedy conditions (Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(i)(a))	Leonard argued he had engaged in services and needed more time (pointed to rehab completion)	DHS: despite services over two years, Leonard failed to secure stable housing/employment, resolve warrants, complete required paperwork, and had relapse(s)	Court: Clear-and-convincing evidence supports this ground; no clear error
Statutory ground — subsequent factors making return contrary to health/safety (Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a))	Leonard contested sufficiency of evidence that post-filing factors made return unsafe	DHS: post-filing issues included relapse, unresolved legal problems, unresolved home-study requirements, continued instability, and anger/medication-management concerns	Court: Found sufficient evidence of subsequent factors; ground established