Bethany Cooper v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children
588 S.W.3d 43
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- DHS filed emergency-protection proceedings in May 2016 after concerns about the children’s living situation; children were adjudicated dependent-neglected in July 2016.
- Bethany had intermittent contact with DHS, a history of methamphetamine use, and multiple positive drug tests (including hair-follicle failure in June 2017 and positive tests during the case).
- The permanency goal was changed to adoption in November 2017 after the court found Bethany noncompliant with the case plan.
- DHS filed a petition to terminate Bethany’s parental rights in January 2018; hearings were held July 30 and October 29, 2018.
- Bethany admitted relapse (including methamphetamine use between the two hearing dates); the children were placed in separate adoptive-capable homes.
- The circuit court terminated Bethany’s parental rights in February 2019; Bethany appealed only the best-interest determination (she did not challenge statutory grounds).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest given adoptability and alleged potential harm on return | Bethany conceded children were adoptable but argued relapse is common and there was insufficient evidence of potential future harm | DHS argued children need permanency and Bethany’s ongoing drug use and instability create a forward-looking risk of harm and lack of capacity to remain drug-free | Court affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supported best-interest finding based on continued drug use, instability, prior removal, and adoptability |
| Whether the court failed to consider sibling bond | Bethany argued the court did not properly weigh the sibling relationship | DHS noted children were already in separate, stable placements and that permanency for each child outweighed sibling separation concerns | Court held the record showed placements were separate and stable; the court considered sibling issues and permissibly weighed them in favor of termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Dade v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 503 S.W.3d 96 (Ark. App. 2016) (standard of review for termination appeals)
- Jackson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 503 S.W.3d 122 (Ark. App. 2016) (give great weight to trial court’s personal observations in child-welfare matters)
- Fox v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 448 S.W.3d 735 (Ark. App. 2014) (termination is an extreme remedy requiring heavy burden)
- T.J. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 947 S.W.2d 761 (Ark. 1997) (two-step framework: parental unfitness and best interest)
- Vail v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 486 S.W.3d 229 (Ark. App. 2016) (potential harm must be forward-looking and includes lack of stability)
- Stephens v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 427 S.W.3d 160 (Ark. App. 2013) (parent’s past behavior is indicator of future behavior)
- Hughes v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 530 S.W.3d 908 (Ark. App. 2017) (best-interest finding must be supported by clear and convincing evidence)
- Middleton v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 572 S.W.3d 410 (Ark. App. 2019) (continued drug use can establish potential harm supporting best-interest finding)