Bell v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
484 S.W.3d 704
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- Appellant Kristin Bell's parental rights to her daughter A.M. (age two) were terminated by the Yell County Circuit Court; Kristin appealed.
- ADHS filed a petition to terminate parental rights based on statutory grounds and evidence gathered after an initial dependency-neglect petition filed May 31, 2013.
- ADHS relied on two termination grounds: (1) "subsequent factors" arising after the original petition and (2) "aggravated circumstances;" the court relied on both but appellate affirmance rests on the subsequent-factors ground.
- ADHS alleged subsequent factors including Kristin's mental-health instability, volatile relationships and legal troubles, positive drug tests, leaving the state, incarceration in Kansas, and A.M.'s developmental delays.
- Kristin argued (1) service of process was defective under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(2)(A), but she did not object below and appeared through counsel; and (2) insufficient evidence supported the statutory grounds and that ADHS failed to offer or continue reunification services.
- The circuit court found clear-and-convincing evidence that termination was appropriate and in the child’s best interest; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kristin) | Defendant's Argument (ADHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service of the TPR petition complied with Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(2)(A) | Service was defective and required reversal | Kristin waived objection by appearing through counsel and failed to preserve the issue below | Waived; failure to raise below bars appellate review |
| Whether evidence satisfied the "subsequent factors" ground under § 9‑27‑341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a) | Only incarceration and child developmental delays were truly "subsequent"; ADHS failed to prove Kristin was indifferent or unable to remedy them and failed to provide services | Evidence of multiple post-petition problems (mental health, relationships, incarceration, drug tests, leaving state, delays) and offers of services supported the ground | Affirmed on the subsequent-factors ground; evidence sufficient |
| Whether ADHS failed to offer appropriate reunification services after removal | Court and ADHS refused to provide further services after Kristin’s incarceration; absence of services defeats subsequent-factors finding | Kristin did not challenge the trial court’s reasonable-efforts findings and the record shows services were offered post-petition and after removal | Rejected; Kristin failed to preserve or challenge reasonable-efforts findings; services adequately considered |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interest | Termination not warranted given prior custody and some improvement with services | Termination was in A.M.'s best interest given risks to health, safety, welfare and prospects for adoption | Court found termination in child’s best interest and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. v. Jones, 97 Ark. App. 267, 248 S.W.3d 507 (2007) (failure to object to service at trial forfeits appellate review)
- Myers v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 91 Ark. App. 53, 208 S.W.3d 241 (2005) (appearance and participation may waive service defects)
- Blackerby v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 373 S.W.3d 375 (Ark. App. 2009) (trial-level objection required to preserve service issues for appeal)
- Smithee v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 471 S.W.3d 227 (Ark. App. 2015) (TPR requires clear-and-convincing proof and best-interest finding)
- Strickland v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 287 S.W.3d 633 (Ark. App. 2008) (appellate standard for factual findings in TPR cases)
- Samuels v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 443 S.W.3d 599 (Ark. App. 2014) (appellate courts review TPR orders de novo)
- Contreras v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 474 S.W.3d 510 (Ark. App. 2015) (failure to challenge facts on appeal abandons issues)
- Benedict v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 242 S.W.3d 305 (Ark. App. 2006) (standards for challenging TPR evidence on appeal)
- Anderson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 385 S.W.3d 367 (Ark. App. 2011) (challenge to reunification efforts requires attacking trial court’s reasonable-efforts findings)