Brittany Rynn Migues v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Child
586 S.W.3d 221
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background:
- A.T. (b. Jan. 10, 2017) was removed Jan. 2018 after parents were homeless and arrested; DHS alleged inadequate supervision and environmental neglect.
- Court ordered mother to complete drug/alcohol, psychological, counseling, parenting services, random screens, and to obtain stable housing/employment; case goal initially reunification with a concurrent goal of relative placement.
- Paternal relatives (great-grandmother and grandfather) lived out of state at first; ICPC packets were prepared but not mailed due to mother’s adamant refusal to allow out-of-state placement.
- Mother intermittently complied (briefly while at Dorcas House), was removed from that program for noncompliance, was incarcerated for much of the case, missed services and visitation, and did not produce relatives’ home-study paperwork.
- DHS continued contact with relatives but no home studies were completed; DHS recommended termination and testified the child is adoptable (378 potential matches).
- The trial court terminated mother’s parental rights, finding clear-and-convincing evidence of statutory grounds (including abandonment and aggravated circumstances), adoptability, reasonable DHS efforts, and that termination was in the child’s best interest.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was contrary to A.T.’s best interest because DHS failed to fully pursue relative placement under the court’s concurrent goal | Migues: DHS didn’t fully explore relatives; termination premature while relative placement might preserve bond and avoid adoption | DHS: Contact was made; delays due to relatives’ moves and mother’s insistence against out-of-state placement; relatives didn’t complete paperwork; DHS made reasonable efforts; child is adoptable | Court affirmed termination—DHS made reasonable efforts, mother’s opposition to out-of-state placement contributed to delays, relatives were not ready/willing |
| Whether mother should have been given additional time (three months) to stabilize before termination | Migues: Had made progress, bonded with child, and needed a short period to obtain stability; additional time less restrictive than termination | DHS: Child’s need for permanency outweighs additional time; mother’s inconsistent participation and repeated incarceration show low likelihood of timely reunification | Court denied more time—mother’s past behavior and lack of stability made further delay unjustified; termination was in child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Posey v. Arkansas Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 370 Ark. 500, 262 S.W.3d 159 (2007) (defines clear-and-convincing standard and appellate review in TPR cases)
- Reid v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. 187, 380 S.W.3d 918 (only one statutory ground needed to support termination)
- Clark v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2019 Ark. App. 223, 575 S.W.3d 578 (discusses when foregoing relative placement in favor of termination may be erroneous; distinguished on facts)
- Ponder v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. 261, 494 S.W.3d 426 (party may not complain of trial-court action that party induced or acquiesced in)
- Cobb v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2017 Ark. App. 85, 512 S.W.3d 694 (full compliance with a case plan is not dispositive; stability and parenting capacity matter)
- Bryant v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 375, 554 S.W.3d 295 (a child’s need for permanency can outweigh a parent’s request for more time)