Blasingame v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
542 S.W.3d 873
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- DHS removed Richard Blasingame's three children in Sept. 2015 after an extensive history of abuse/neglect and the mother’s acute drug-induced incapacity; Blasingame fled when police arrived.
- DHS required Blasingame to follow a case plan (stable housing, income, transportation; parenting, domestic-violence, substance/psych assessments and treatment; drug screens; regular visits).
- At the termination hearing, evidence showed Blasingame had multiple arrests during the case, failed to complete domestic-violence treatment, had unstable housing and employment (eviction), and made death threats toward kin caring for the children.
- The children were placed together in a therapeutic foster home; foster parents sought adoption and caseworkers believed adoption likely.
- The circuit court terminated Blasingame’s parental rights (hearing Feb. 2017; written order filed June 2017), finding three statutory grounds and that termination was in the children’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Blasingame's Argument | DHS/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for statutory grounds (failure to remedy, subsequent factors, aggravated circumstances) | Court lacked clear evidence; his primary ‘‘condition’’ was fleeing and he had recently made progress (classes, assessments) | DHS relied on long history of domestic violence, instability, multiple arrests, and failure to complete parts of the case plan | Affirmed: at least one ground (failure to remedy) proved by clear and convincing evidence; appellate court will not reweigh credibility |
| Best interest of the children | Recent progress by Blasingame made return safe; insufficient proof of harm if returned | Children were in stable therapeutic placement, adoptable, and parent’s instability and violence posed risk | Affirmed: termination is in children’s best interest given arrests, violent behavior, threats, instability |
| Timeliness of filing written termination order (statutory 30-day requirement) | Delay (127 days) violated Ark. Code §9-27-341(e) and warrants reversal | Failure to file within 30 days is not jurisdictional and has no statutory penalty; precedents treat timing as nonjurisdictional ‘‘best practice’’ | Affirmed: timing violation does not require reversal under existing Arkansas Supreme Court precedent |
| Preservation of timeliness claim on appeal | Could not raise issue earlier because no written order existed; thus preserved | DHS contended failure to raise below barred review | Preserved: dependency-neglect cases do not require posttrial motion to preserve such issues; court considered the argument but rejected it on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (2001) (standard of de novo review in termination cases)
- Anderson v. Douglas, 310 Ark. 633, 839 S.W.2d 196 (1992) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- J.T. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (1997) (appellate standard for factual findings in termination cases)
- Camarillo-Cox v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 360 Ark. 340, 201 S.W.3d 391 (2005) (case-plan compliance not dispositive; focus on whether parent is stable and safe)
- Wade v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 337 Ark. 353, 990 S.W.2d 509 (1999) (failure to file termination order within statutory time is not jurisdictional and is not reversible error)
- Pine v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 379 S.W.3d 703 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (parental rights will not be enforced to detriment of child’s welfare)