Brown v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2016 Ark. App. 455
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- DHS took emergency custody of Brown’s four children after he left them with a friend and did not return; Brown had been evicted by his mother due to damage caused while addicted to methamphetamine.
- The court found probable cause and adjudicated the children dependent-neglected on June 16, 2015; DHS had prior involvement with the family and offered services.
- The court ordered Brown to follow a case plan: random drug screens, a drug-and-alcohol assessment and compliance with its recommendations, parenting classes, stable housing and employment, and regular DHS contact.
- Brown had minimal compliance: only one visit with the children, no completed assessment or classes, missed drug screens, and unstable housing/employment. Reunification services were terminated in November 2015 and the permanency goal changed to adoption in December 2015.
- DHS filed a petition to terminate Brown’s parental rights; at the February 2, 2016 termination hearing Brown requested a six-week continuance to begin inpatient drug treatment the next day. The court denied the continuance, proceeded, and terminated his parental rights; Brown appealed solely on the continuance issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion by denying Brown a continuance of the termination hearing | Brown: continuance needed so he could begin inpatient treatment the next day, which could aid reunification | DHS: denial proper due to lack of diligence and Brown’s prior failure to comply with services; no prejudice shown | Court: denial was not an abuse of discretion—Brown showed lack of diligence and could not show prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 219 S.W.3d 705 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005) (denial of continuance review: appellate reversal requires abuse of discretion and prejudice)
- Martin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 465 S.W.3d 881 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (lack of diligence can justify denial of continuance and supports finding of no prejudice)