Brown v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2015 Ark. App. 425
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- DHS received a hotline report (Sept. 4, 2014) alleging Jennifer Brown used methamphetamine while caring for her eight‑month‑old daughter S.B.; a home assessment confirmed drug use.
- The child was removed after the father took the child and tested positive for multiple drugs; an ex parte emergency custody order and probable‑cause order followed in September 2014.
- DHS learned Brown had a prior involuntary termination of parental rights to another child; DHS filed a petition to terminate Brown’s rights less than one week after removal (Sept. 11, 2014).
- The court ordered services only for the father; Brown received supervised visitation but no reunification services before termination proceedings.
- Adjudication and termination hearings were held together Oct. 23, 2014; the court excluded Brown’s proffered evidence that S.B. was not born with drugs in her system and later entered separate adjudication and termination orders (Oct. 28, 2014).
- Termination occurred on an expedited timeline: hearing 48 days after removal, termination order 53 days after removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should permit counsel to withdraw via a Linker‑Flores no‑merit brief | Brown: appellate counsel should not be relieved; nonfrivolous issues exist | Appellant’s counsel: adverse rulings present no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal | Motion to withdraw denied; court ordered rebriefing on the merits |
| Whether termination was proper without offering reunification services to Brown | Brown: expedited termination without services was unnecessary given both parents’ conduct and Brown’s compliance before removal | DHS: Brown’s prior involuntary termination and current drug use supported immediate termination | Court found a nonfrivolous argument existed that termination without services and the swift breakup may not have been required; ordered merit briefing |
| Whether trial court erred in excluding Brown’s proffer that S.B. was not born with drugs | Brown: evidence distinguishing current case from prior terminations was relevant to best interests | DHS: prior history was relevant; the proffered newborn drug status was not relevant | Court concluded a nonfrivolous argument exists that the exclusion/prevention of the proffer could be erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Linker‑Flores v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (Ark. 2004) (establishes standard for counsel seeking to withdraw via a no‑merit brief in parental‑termination appeals)