Bradbury v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2012 Ark. App. 680
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Bradbury's parental rights to D.D. and C.B. were terminated in Garland County on May 14, 2012.
- Bradbury argues there was insufficient evidence of abandonment as to D.D. and that siblings’ bond favors restoring C.B. with D.D.
- Bradbury and Ashley Bradbury were married; C.B. is Ashley's child by another man, and Bradbury is not C.B.'s biological father.
- C.B. was born April 8, 2011; drugs were detected; DHS placed C.B. in foster care shortly after birth while Bradbury was incarcerated.
- D.D. joined her mother at a residential treatment center in 2011, but the mother left against court orders, leading to D.D.'s removal to foster care.
- Adjudications: D.D. and C.B. were adjudicated dependent-neglected in 2011; permanency planning shifted toward adoption in 2012; Bradbury was arrested in February 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a statutory ground for TPR as to D.D.? | Bradbury argues no abandonment evidence; no intent required by § 9-27-303(2). | DHS relied on an alternative 'other factors' ground arising after petition. | Clear and convincing evidence supported the 'other factors' ground for D.D. |
| Were D.D. and C.B.'s best interests satisfied by TPR? | Bradbury asserts maintaining the sibling bond favors keeping the children together. | DHS and guardians showed continued risk to health and safety; adoption feasible with siblings separated. | Best-interest finding supported; TPR affirmed for both D.D. and C.B. |
| Did the best interests analysis require reversal due to perceived lack of statutory grounds for D.D.? | If no statutory ground for D.D., TPR should not have been granted for D.D. | Court properly found a statutory ground; best interests still support TPR. | No reversal; the circuit court's best-interest ruling was not clearly erroneous. |
| What is the appropriate standard of review for TPR? | De novo review with clear and convincing evidence standard; appellate deference to trial court credibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tenny v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 360 (Ark. App. 2011) (discusses permanency and standards in TPR context)
- Rossie-Fonner v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 29 (Ark. App. 2012) (supports consideration of harm and permanency in TPR)
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207 (2001) (articulates standard for TPR review and grounds)
- Allen v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 288 (Ark. App. 2011) (child welfare standards and TPR considerations)
- Ratliff v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 104 Ark.App. 355 (2009) (TPR factors and review framework)
- Blanchard v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 215 (Ark. App. 2012) (credibility and evidentiary review in TPR context)