Barton v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
576 S.W.3d 59
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- DHS removed JB (b. 2008) and ZS (b. 2013) in Dec. 2015 for environmental neglect (no heat, utilities, unsafe housing); case reopened after failed trial placement and eviction in 2016; BS (b. 2017) was removed in Apr. 2017 based on siblings' custody.
- DHS provided multi-year services (parenting classes, therapy, supervised visitation, psychological evaluation); Barton completed services but DHS found persistent supervisory and housing problems.
- Supervised visits (mostly in a mall play area) were observed 43 times; Barton lost supervision of at least one child in 22 visits.
- Psychological evaluation concluded Barton has limited adaptive/problem‑solving ability without significant supports and is unlikely to reunify without full‑time assistance.
- DHS sought termination under two statutory grounds (subsequent factors and aggravated circumstances) and argued termination was in the children’s best interest; the trial court found the witnesses credible, admitted the psychological report, and terminated parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds support termination (aggravated circumstances / subsequent factors) | Barton: she complied with services; supervision failures occurred partly because visits were held in a chaotic mall environment; she improved housing and had people willing to help. | DHS: three years of services produced no adequate parenting; children repeatedly left Barton's custody/visitation; psychologist found little likelihood of successful reunification without intensive supports. | Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supports aggravated‑circumstances ground (little likelihood services will achieve reunification); no need to address the other ground. |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interest | Barton: home problems were remedied; potential harm speculative; visitation location caused issues. | DHS: children are adoptable and at risk if returned due to Barton's inability to supervise, unstable relationships with abusive men, and history of environmental neglect. | Court: Affirmed — children adoptable and at risk of potential harm; best‑interest finding supported. |
| Admissibility of psychological evaluation | Barton: report was hearsay and psychologist should testify. | DHS: report admitted and relied upon; trial court found witness testimony independently supported findings. | Court: Objection not preserved (counsel’s objection was vague); even if error, admission was harmless because other testimony independently supported findings. |
| Standard of review and credibility findings | Barton: asks appellate court to reweigh evidence and credibility. | DHS: trial court’s credibility determinations entitled to deference; findings must stand unless clearly erroneous. | Court: Applied de novo review of legal question with deference to trial court credibility; did not find clear error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pine v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 379 S.W.3d 703 (2012) (standard for termination review; clear and convincing evidence; deference to trial court credibility)
- Dinkins v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 40 S.W.3d 286 (2001) (heightened deference to circuit court on child‑placement credibility)
- Chaffin v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 471 S.W.3d 251 (2015) (potential‑harm inquiry is forward‑looking and may be broadly framed)
- Hooks v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 536 S.W.3d 666 (2017) (proof of a single statutory ground is sufficient for termination; admissibility error harmless if evidence cumulative)
- Huff v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 65 S.W.3d 880 (2002) (importance of cross‑examination/right to confront expert in termination cases)
- Samuels v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 443 S.W.3d 599 (2014) (issues not raised at trial are not preserved on appeal)