Beck v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 467
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mother Crystal Beck took her two daughters to a child-advocacy center alleging sexual abuse; DHS investigated and removed the children after Beck tested positive for multiple controlled substances and exhibited erratic behavior.
- Children were adjudicated dependent-neglected (Sept. 9, 2015) based on parental unfitness and neglect related to substance use and impaired supervision.
- DHS provided reunification services; review hearings found only partial/minimal progress, ongoing positive drug tests, missed assessments, unstable housing, and suspended visitation on therapist recommendation.
- Permanency goal changed to termination/adoption (June 29, 2016); DHS filed petition to terminate Beck’s parental rights alleging 12‑month failure-to-remedy, subsequent other factors, and aggravated circumstances.
- Termination hearing (Dec. 16, 2016) produced testimony that Beck repeatedly tested positive for drugs, had not completed recommended outpatient treatment, moved to Utah and lived with an elderly man in an unstable arrangement, and had little/no contact with the children during therapy.
- Trial court found all three statutory grounds proven and that termination was in the children’s best interest; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Beck's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds support termination | All three grounds were not proved; termination unwarranted | Grounds were proved by clear and convincing evidence | Affirmed based on sufficiency of 12‑month failure‑to‑remedy ground |
| Sufficiency of evidence for 12‑month failure-to-remedy | Recent progress and treatment efforts show remediation | Continued drug use, missed treatment, and failure to complete plan show conditions not remedied | Beck failed to remedy conditions; trial court’s finding not clearly erroneous |
| Aggravated‑circumstances and subsequent‑other-factors challenges | These grounds improperly applied | DHS showed little likelihood continued services would succeed and risks to children | Court’s findings upheld (but only one ground required) |
| Best‑interest determination (potential harm) | Insufficient evidence of potential harm to children if returned | Past behavior, instability of living situation, and therapist’s no-contact recommendation show likely harm | Best‑interest finding not clearly erroneous; termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 448 S.W.3d 735 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (termination is extreme remedy; heavy burden on petitioner)
- Smithee v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 471 S.W.3d 227 (Ark. 2015) (parental rights not enforced to detriment of child’s welfare)
- Anderson v. Douglas, 839 S.W.2d 196 (Ark. 1992) (clear-and-convincing evidence defined)
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 40 S.W.3d 286 (Ark. 2001) (de novo standard of review with deference to credibility findings)
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 947 S.W.2d 761 (Ark. 1997) (appellate review: do not reverse unless findings clearly erroneous)
- Reid v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 380 S.W.3d 918 (Ark. 2011) (only one statutory ground need be proved to support termination)
- Martin v. State, 515 S.W.3d 599 (Ark. 2017) (potential harm viewed broadly, including lack of stability)
- Harbin v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 451 S.W.3d 231 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (past behavior may predict potential harm if child returned)