Bean v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 77
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- ADHS removed three sons for severe environmental neglect in July 2014; they were adjudicated dependent-neglected. A fourth son (C.B. 4) was born May 2015 and later added to the case and adjudicated dependent-neglected.
- The Beans participated in services (parenting classes, counseling, IFS, therapy for children) and had intermittent partial compliance; a March 2015 review found them in compliance but the court nevertheless required a reunification plan.
- At the June 2015 permanency-planning hearing the court set adoption as the primary goal with a concurrent goal of reunification, citing unstable employment and an insufficiently clean home; ADHS continued services.
- A trial home placement for the three older boys occurred in October 2015 but was terminated in January 2016 after repeated reports and photographs of severe household unsanitary and safety conditions; ADHS removed all four boys and filed a TPR petition.
- Following an incorporation of prior testimony and a two-day TPR hearing, the trial court terminated the Beans’ parental rights to all four children (May 2, 2016). The Beans appealed the permanency-planning order and the TPR judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Bean's Argument | ADHS/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether changing the permanency goal to adoption was improper | The Beans argued they had made sustained, measurable progress and compliance, so adoption (fourth-preference) was inappropriate | ADHS and trial court pointed to ongoing instability (employment, housing) and insufficient remedy of environmental neglect; concurrent reunification remained possible | Court affirmed the change to adoption as primary with concurrent reunification; Beans were not prejudiced by the change because they later had a trial placement opportunity |
| Whether TPR for C.B.1–C.B.3 could be based on 12-months-out/failure-to-remedy ground | Beans contended they had remedied environmental neglect and complied with many services | ADHS showed long history of environmental neglect, repeated services over 14+ months, failed trial home placement, hotline reports, and photographs demonstrating recurring unsafe conditions | Court held clear-and-convincing evidence supported failure-to-remedy ground for the three oldest children; termination not clearly erroneous |
| Whether TPR for C.B.4 was improper because no permanency-planning hearing was held for him | Beans argued lack of a permanency-planning hearing before terminating rights to C.B.4 rendered TPR defective | ADHS relied on statutory allowance to file a TPR petition before a permanency-planning hearing and that an appropriate permanency plan (adoption) existed | Court held a permanency-planning hearing is not a prerequisite to TPR filing/hearing; termination as to C.B.4 valid because appropriate permanency plan and findings existed |
| Whether TPR was in children’s best interest (potential harm/likelihood of adoption) | Beans argued current/home conditions on hearing day were acceptable and did not show potential harm; they could sustain improvements | ADHS emphasized instability, past failure to sustain cleanliness/safety, parental refusal of help, housing/financial instability, and the children’s needs | Court found termination in children’s best interest: adoptability uncontested and potential harm from returning the children (including instability and recurrence risk) supported TPR |
Key Cases Cited
- Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. McDonald, 91 S.W.3d 536 (Ark. App. 2002) (standard of review and permanency-planning procedures)
- Phillips v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 158 S.W.3d 691 (Ark. App. 2004) (timing and scope of permanency-planning hearings)
- Brabon v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 388 S.W.3d 69 (Ark. App. 2012) (statutory ground for 12‑months-out/failure-to-remedy)
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 40 S.W.3d 286 (Ark. 2001) (de novo review and clear-and-convincing standard in TPR appeals)
- Villasaldo v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 441 S.W.3d 62 (Ark. App. 2014) (parental compliance with services does not bar TPR if parent not a stable, safe caregiver)
- Wilson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 476 S.W.3d 816 (Ark. App. 2015) (overtures to comply shortly before TPR are insufficient to avoid termination)
- Linker-Flores v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 217 S.W.3d 107 (Ark. 2005) (legislative intent for prompt permanency and harm of continued delay)