Baxter v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2017 Ark. App. 508
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Infant J.B. taken into DHS custody at birth after testing positive for methamphetamine; mother Sabreann Baxter admitted long-term meth use.
- Prior to termination hearing, Baxter missed probable-cause, adjudication, and review hearings and had no contact with DHS; child remained in foster care receiving medical and therapeutic services.
- DHS set concurrent goals of reunification and adoption at the August 8, 2016 review (court-authorized); termination petition filed December 15, 2016 alleging subsequent factors, abandonment, and aggravated circumstances.
- Baxter first appeared at the February 6, 2017 termination hearing while incarcerated; she had not completed court-ordered services and acknowledged ongoing drug issues and additional criminal charges.
- Caseworker/adoption specialist testified DHS made referrals despite Baxter’s nonparticipation, J.B. was adoptable, and terminating rights served the child’s need for stability.
- Trial court found statutory grounds proved by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in J.B.’s best interest; appellate court affirmed and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw under no-merit procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved statutory grounds (subsequent factors) for termination | Baxter conceded substance problems but argued progress in prison and willingness to rehabilitate | DHS: Baxter failed to participate, had multiple arrests after removal, was largely nonresponsive, and services were offered but unused | Affirmed — clear-and-convincing evidence supported subsequent-factors ground |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interest | Baxter asked for continued contact/visitation and noted rehabilitative steps while incarcerated | DHS: child adoptable; ongoing parental instability and risk of harm if rights retained | Affirmed — best-interest finding supported by adoptability and potential harm factors |
| Timeliness of setting case goals (statutory-compliance) | Baxter (via counsel) noted goal set after statutory deadline (adjudication April; goal set in August) | DHS: Issue not preserved below; even if considered, Baxter could not show prejudice because she made no efforts to contact or comply | Noted but unpreserved; appellate court deemed it non-meritorious and not prejudicial |
| Counsel’s no-merit withdrawal and pro se points | Baxter filed pro se points asking relief or visitation based on post-incarceration progress | DHS: points insufficient to reweigh evidence or show preserved error | Withdraw motion granted; appeal found wholly without merit; termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004) (standards for counsel filing no-merit brief in appeals from termination orders)
- Cheney v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 396 S.W.3d 272 (2012) (untimely objections to goal-setting are forfeited if not raised below and require showing of prejudice)