Brad Honeycutt v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children
615 S.W.3d 741
Ark. Ct. App.2021Background
- Jan 2019: DHS removed YH (b. 2/18/16) and SH (b. 4/25/17) after police found them unsupervised in a filthy home; mother tested positive for methamphetamine. Honeycutt was identified as a putative father.
- Honeycutt had been incarcerated since before SH’s birth; the court initially found paternity then later set it aside pending proof; paternity was later established by DNA.
- DHS filed a petition to terminate Honeycutt’s parental rights alleging multiple statutory grounds including prolonged incarceration and failure to remedy conditions. Honeycutt did not contest the statutory grounds on appeal.
- At the TPR hearing (May 14, 2020) DHS and foster parents testified the children have no medical barriers to adoption, are "very sweet," and are improving in foster care; foster parents requested transfer to a preadoptive home for permanency.
- The circuit court terminated Honeycutt’s rights (June 12, 2020), finding the children adoptable and that return posed potential harm given his incarceration, lack of housing/employment, no bond with the children, and the unsuitability of the proposed grandparent placement. Honeycutt appealed adverse best-interest findings (adoptability and potential harm).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Honeycutt) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Potential harm from delaying TPR | Waiting a few months for his release would avoid harm; he could complete the plan and be ready by then | Continued uncertainty is harmful; his long sentence and delayed release prevent timely permanency | Court: potential-harm finding affirmed — instability from "wait-and-see" and lengthy incarceration supports termination |
| Adoptability of the children | DHS failed to perform data-matching and foster parents’ request for preadoptive transfer undermines adoptability finding | Caseworker and foster-parent testimony that children are adoptable and have no adoption-precluding medical issues is sufficient | Court: adoptability finding affirmed — testimonial evidence sufficed; foster parents’ request for permanency did not contradict adoptability |
| Least-restrictive disposition preference | Termination was premature because a less-restrictive option (reunification after his release) was available within a similar timeframe | Children had been in foster care 16 months; need for permanency outweighed delay; no suitable family placement available | Court: DHS chose least restrictive plan consistent with children’s best interests; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lively v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 131, 456 S.W.3d 383 (de novo review and burden of proof in termination cases)
- Chaffin v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 522, 471 S.W.3d 251 (best-interest factors and standard of proof)
- Bean v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2017 Ark. App. 77, 513 S.W.3d 859 (stability and permanence as justification for TPR)
- Pine v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 781, 379 S.W.3d 703 (potential-harm analysis may be broad; no requirement to identify actual harm)
- Hoffman v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 856, 380 S.W.3d 454 ("wait-and-see" approach undermines permanency)
- Fields v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 104 Ark. App. 37, 289 S.W.3d 134 (sentence controls for incarceration-based termination analysis)
- Caldwell v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. App. 144, 484 S.W.3d 719 (caseworker testimony can support adoptability)
- Myers v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 91 Ark. App. 53, 208 S.W.3d 241 (issues not raised below are not preserved on appeal)