Blackwood v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
576 S.W.3d 95
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- DHS removed B.H. (born Nov. 20, 2016) at birth due to positive drug tests for mother and infant; father (Steven Blackwood) was incarcerated throughout the case and later acknowledged paternity.
- Court adjudicated B.H. dependent-neglected; case plan required father to resolve criminal issues, maintain sobriety, housing, employment, and complete parenting services.
- Father had repeated incarcerations and parole violations tied to methamphetamine offenses; he had virtually no contact with the child (one courtroom visit) and little compliance with the case plan.
- DHS placed B.H. with foster parents where he was receiving intensive therapies for fetal alcohol syndrome and had bonded with caregivers; the foster family sought to adopt.
- DHS investigated paternal grandmother (Mary Ann Heath) but did not approve placement while the child remained in foster care; an adoptive-home study for the foster parents was pending but in process.
- Trial court found statutory grounds for termination proven by clear and convincing evidence, concluded termination served B.H.’s best interests (child was adoptable and return to father posed potential harm), and terminated father’s parental rights. Appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Blackwood's Argument | DHS/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence | DHS failed to prove father unfit; no evidence he harmed child; father’s mother could care for child pending his release | Father’s long prison sentence, chronic incarceration, noncompliance with case plan support statutory grounds (including imprisonment ground) | Affirmed: sufficient evidence, including imprisonment ground, established by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interest (adoptability & potential harm) | Termination premature; child should have been placed with grandmother so father could reunify after release | Child is adoptable; father’s past conduct, lack of relationship, and instability show potential harm; permanency required | Affirmed: termination in child’s best interest given adoptability and potential harm |
| Whether DHS complied with court orders (adoptive home study) | DHS failed to complete adoptive-placement home study despite time to do so, depriving father of placement option | Adoption study was in process; pending administrative steps do not defeat termination given other evidence | Rejected: lack of completed adoptive study did not render termination improper; remaining evidence supported decision |
| Whether Cranford precedent required placement with relative pending father’s release | Father analogized to Cranford where temporary placement with relative was appropriate | Cranford distinguished: in Cranford father showed pre-incarceration stability and imminent release; not present here | Rejected: Cranford not controlling; facts here align with cases upholding termination when parent lacks stability and reunification unlikely |
Key Cases Cited
- Posey v. Ark. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 262 S.W.3d 159 (Ark. 2007) (defines clear-and-convincing standard in termination context)
- Reid v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 380 S.W.3d 918 (Ark. 2011) (only one statutory ground needed to support termination)
- Cranford v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 851 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011) (relative placement may be favored where parent showed stability and imminent release)
- White v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 530 S.W.3d 402 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (drug-related chronic incarcerations support finding of potential harm)
- Swangel v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 547 S.W.3d 111 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018) (relative placement does not preclude findings of potential harm from parental drug issues)
- Elliott v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 536 S.W.3d 642 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (distinguishes Cranford where child is not in permanent stable placement)
- Cobb v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 512 S.W.3d 694 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (stability, not mere technical case-plan compliance, is determinative)
- Sharks v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 502 S.W.3d 569 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (potential-harm analysis need not show actual harm and is broad in scope)