Black v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
565 S.W.3d 518
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- S.N. (born ~2010) was removed from mother Tabatha Black in May 2014 for inadequate supervision and substance abuse; later placed with his father, Jeffrey Newell.
- Black partially complied with case plans; case closed when S.N. was with his father, but S.N. was removed again after the father’s arrest; Black was found not fit for custody then.
- Black retained custody of a younger sibling, S.B., born while S.N. was in foster care; DHS did not seek to terminate parental rights to S.B.
- Over the proceedings Black completed some services (parenting class, drug/alcohol safety course, psychological evaluation), obtained intermittent employment, and received church support; she nonetheless had intermittent positive marijuana tests and lacked sustained completion of outpatient substance treatment.
- DHS filed a termination petition; the circuit court found three statutory grounds for termination, that S.N. was likely adoptable, and that returning S.N. to Black would pose potential harm; the court terminated Black’s parental rights to S.N.
- On appeal Black challenged only the best-interest/potential-harm finding, arguing that S.B.’s continued placement with Black showed Black was fit and that the court lacked specific factual findings of potential harm. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in S.N.’s best interest based on potential harm of returning him to Black | Black: record does not show S.N.’s health or safety would be at risk if returned | DHS/Court: Black’s instability, partial case-plan compliance, ongoing drug use, insufficient income, and parenting deficiencies create potential harm | Court affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supports potential-harm finding and best-interest determination |
| Whether S.B.’s continued custody with Black precludes termination as to S.N. | Black: because she retained custody of S.B., she is sufficiently fit to parent S.N.; sibling’s custody undermines potential-harm finding | DHS/Court: best-interest analysis is individual to each child; S.B.’s placement does not control S.N.’s outcome | Court affirmed: sibling’s placement is not dispositive; court may ignore S.B. when assessing S.N.’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Meriweather v. Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 98 Ark. App. 328, 255 S.W.3d 505 (Ark. Ct. App.) (standard for reversing termination is clear error)
- Benedict v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 96 Ark. App. 395, 242 S.W.3d 305 (Ark. Ct. App.) (unchallenged statutory grounds are affirmed)
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (Ark.) (de novo review of termination cases with deference to circuit court findings)
- Krecker v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2017 Ark. App. 537, 530 S.W.3d 393 (Ark. Ct. App.) (appellate standard for clear-and-convincing findings)
- Weatherspoon v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2013 Ark. App. 104, 426 S.W.3d 520 (Ark. Ct. App.) (best-interest inquiry is individualized to each child)
- Sharks v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. App. 435, 502 S.W.3d 569 (Ark. Ct. App.) (potential-harm analysis may be broad)
- Reid v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. 187, 380 S.W.3d 918 (Ark.) (court need not identify a specific harm; potential harm suffices)
- Miller v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2017 Ark. App. 396, 525 S.W.3d 48 (Ark. Ct. App.) (evidence supporting statutory grounds may also support potential-harm finding)
- Wright v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 83 Ark. App. 1, 115 S.W.3d 332 (Ark. Ct. App.) (completion of case plan is not dispositive if core deficiencies persist)
- Lee v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 102 Ark. App. 337, 285 S.W.3d 277 (Ark. Ct. App.) (case-plan compliance must remediate underlying parental deficiencies to avoid termination)
- Howell v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2017 Ark. App. 154, 517 S.W.3d 431 (Ark. Ct. App.) (continued illegal drug use during a dependency case poses risk of harm to the child)