Brabon v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2012 Ark. App. 2
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Brabon appeals an Izard County Circuit Court termination of parental rights to her four children: K.B. (1998), T.B. I (2000), T.B.2 (2001), and A.B. (2002).
- DHS petitioned for emergency custody after alleging sexual abuse of A.B. by K.B. and uncovering a filthy, vermin-infested home with meth-related items and stolen property; Brabon was arrested and the department obtained an emergency custody order.
- Adjudication found the children dependent-neglected due to Brabon’s noncompliance with a safety plan and the truth of the emergency petition; reunification was the initial case-plan goal.
- A 2010 permanency planning hearing shifted the goal to adoption, noting Brabon’s failure to make significant progress (employment, housing, transportation, consistent visitation).
- DHS filed for termination in 2011 asserting multiple grounds, including twelve-month failure to remedy and subsequent issues; a termination hearing occurred in April 2011.
- The circuit court found two grounds proved, determined adoption likely, and concluded termination was in the children’s best interests; Brabon appeals the sufficiency of adoptability evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adoptability and best interests supported? | Brabon argues lack of proof of adoptability. | DHS contends evidence shows high likelihood of adoption; proper factors considered. | Yes; court found adoptable and termination in best interests. |
| admissibility of Strickland testimony based on Pierce report? | Strickland’s adoptability testimony relied on inadmitted report and hearsay. | Objection waived; report’s contents considered through trial record. | Waived objection; testimony admissible for the court’s adoptability finding. |
| Preservation of age-based consent argument under 9-9-206(a)(5)? | Brabon raised issue that children consent to adoption due to age. | Argument not raised below; not preserved for review. | Unpreserved issue; not considered on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243 (1997) (two-step termination: unfitness and best interests; grounds shown)
- Reid v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 380 S.W.3d 918 (2011) (best-interests framework; adoptability considered among factors)
- McFarland v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 210 S.W.3d 143 (2005) (best interests and adoptability factors)
- Carroll v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 148 S.W.3d 780 (2004) (adoptability analysis in termination cases)
- Childress v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Services, 307 S.W.3d 50 (2009) (consent issue not applicable to termination proceedings)
- Lamontagne v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 366 S.W.3d 351 (2010) (preservation and standard of review in permanency cases)
- Welch v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 290 (2010 Ark. App. 798) (clear-and-convincing standard; de novo review of termination)