Beard v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2016 Ark. App. 467
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- DHS filed for emergency custody on July 3, 2014, after infant E.J. (2 months) was hospitalized with multiple fractures and an apparent nasal burn; Diane Beard said the infant fell from a bed.
- Trial court entered emergency removal and, on October 3, 2014, adjudicated the children dependent-neglected; reunification was the initial goal and Diane was given a case plan (housing, employment, parenting, psychological evaluation, counseling).
- Over 15 months of services DHS provided parenting classes, counseling, visitation, transportation, and casework; Diane had not obtained suitable housing and had extremely low intellectual functioning (IQ ~59) and mental-health diagnoses.
- On November 30, 2015, the permanency goal for E.J. changed to termination and adoption; DHS filed a petition to terminate Diane’s parental rights as to E.J. on December 30, 2015.
- At the February 1, 2016 termination hearing DHS argued (and the trial court found) that (1) E.J. had been out of Diane’s custody for 12+ months and she failed to remedy the conditions that caused removal despite meaningful efforts, and (2) aggravated circumstances existed because reunification was unlikely to succeed.
- The trial court terminated Diane’s parental rights to E.J.; Diane appealed only the sufficiency of the statutory grounds, not the best-interest finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Beard) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS failed to make meaningful efforts so § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a) is not met (failure-to-remedy) | DHS did not provide adequate, disability-accommodating services (e.g., timely DDS), so Diane could not be rehabilitated | DHS provided extensive services and assistance; Diane received but did not benefit sufficiently to remedy conditions | Held: Court affirmed without relying solely on this ground; sufficiency of meaningful-efforts challenge rejected as part of overall record support for termination outcomes |
| Whether aggravated circumstances existed under § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(ix)(a)(3)(A)(i) (little likelihood services will result in reunification) | Diane made some progress and additional services (e.g., DDS) might have enabled reunification; finding is speculative | Due to Diane’s extremely low IQ, mental-health issues, failure to obtain housing, and inability to understand child’s special needs, reunification was unlikely despite services | Held: Affirmed — trial court’s finding of aggravated circumstances was not clearly erroneous |
| Whether termination was appropriate when only one statutory ground was proven | Diane argued insufficiency of grounds overall | DHS argued aggravated-circumstances ground alone sufficed and best-interest was shown | Held: Affirmed — only one statutory ground required and aggravated-circumstances ground supported termination |
| Whether trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous under the clear-and-convincing evidence standard | Diane contended the record left room for doubt and that trial court overlooked potential benefit of additional services | DHS stressed long passage of time (19 months), persistent unsafe conditions, and expert/caseworker testimony about inability to protect child | Held: Affirmed — reviewer not left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court erred |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 479 S.W.3d 63 (Ark. App. 2015) (standard for de novo review and clear-and-convincing proof)
- J.T. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 947 S.W.2d 761 (Ark. 1997) (appellate standard for reviewing parental-termination findings)
- Yarborough v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 240 S.W.3d 626 (Ark. App. 2006) (aggravated-circumstances/reunification-services analysis)
- Sanford v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 474 S.W.3d 503 (Ark. App. 2015) (only one statutory ground required for termination)
- Johnson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 82 S.W.3d 183 (Ark. App. 2002) (parental rights should not be enforced to the detriment of the child’s health and well-being)