Basham v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
459 S.W.3d 824
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- DHS took emergency custody of 4-year-old D.B. after a search of Charles and D.B.’s home uncovered methamphetamine and a firearm; Ashley was incarcerated in Texas.
- D.B. was adjudicated dependent-neglected with reunification as the goal; both parents were to complete substance-abuse treatment and related services.
- Charles remained incarcerated throughout the case and was to participate in services; Ashley’s whereabouts and compliance varied over time.
- A home study was ordered for Ashley’s Texas-based mother; Ashley’s compliance was inconsistent, and Charles showed some compliance while incarcerated.
- The court changed the goal to adoption on May 7, 2014; DHS petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights on four statutory grounds; a termination hearing was held on July 30, 2014 with an August 6, 2014 order terminating rights for both, after which Ashley appealed and Charles filed a no-merit brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indigency and counsels’ appointment for Ashley | Ashley's indigence and right to appointed counsel were ignored | Court proceeded with Ashley without appointed counsel | Reversed; remanded for counsel appointment and proceedings consistent with this opinion |
| Whether Ashley's rights were properly terminated on the evidence | Termination supported by clear and convincing evidence | DHS proved grounds and best interest | Not reached due to reversal on indigency issue; termination order as to Ashley reversed and remanded |
| Charles's continuance and overall termination ruling (no-merit appeal) | Continuance denial and termination grounds unmeritorious | Discretionary denial of continuance; permanency-planning authority existed; grounds supported | Proceedings affirmed as to Charles; counsel’s motion to withdraw granted; no-merit ruling upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Bearden v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 317 (2001) (indigent-rights and appointment of counsel in termination cases)
- Sims v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 137 (2015 WL 831178) (clear and convincing evidence standard; best interest and grounds)
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207 (2001) (clear and convincing evidence standard in termination)
- Thompson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 59 Ark. App. 141 (1997) (illustrates substantial life-period considerations in termination)
- Moore v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 333 Ark. 288 (1998) (length of imprisonment and impact on child)
- Hill v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2012 Ark. App. 108 (2012) (three-year sentence and child’s age in termination)
- Fields v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 104 Ark.App. 37 (2008) (ten-year concurrent sentences and child’s age)
- Moses v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2014 Ark. App. 466 (2014) (treatment of prison term length in substantial period analysis)
- Bowman v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 477 (2012) (method for evaluating substantial period of life in child)