Brown v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
542 S.W.3d 899
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Child A.G. was removed from the home for parental drug use and unsafe living conditions; DHS filed to terminate parental rights.
- DNA testing established D'Andre Brown as A.G.'s biological father; a review hearing on April 29, 2016, changed his legal status and an order reflecting that was filed Sept. 21, 2016.
- DHS caseworker and parole officer testified Brown lacked stable housing, had utilities turned off, had broken-glass and dangerous conditions in the home, and was associated with Kelli Greenway (whose parental rights had been terminated).
- Brown had limited visitation, showed aggressive behavior, provided no documentary proof of steady employment or income, and the trial court found his testimony not credible.
- Trial court terminated Brown’s parental rights, finding clear and convincing evidence termination was in A.G.’s best interest and that statutory grounds (abandonment; subsequent factors; aggravated circumstances) were satisfied.
- Brown appealed, arguing (1) his parental status was not properly established before termination and (2) DHS failed to prove statutory grounds and did not provide appropriate services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brown) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brown’s parental status was conclusively established before the termination hearing | Sept. 21, 2016 order insufficiently clear that Brown was adjudicated legal father; termination invalid without explicit prior finding | Brown participated in and acquiesced to the court’s on-the-record colloquy that his legal status was established at the April 29, 2016 review hearing | Court: Brown consented/acquiesced; parental status was established and issue not preserved for reversal |
| Whether statutory grounds for termination were proven by clear and convincing evidence | Insufficient evidence of abandonment/subsequent factors/aggravated circumstances; DHS failed to provide adequate services | Evidence showed abandonment/no meaningful contact, failure to comply with court-ordered case plan (housing, employment, access), and aggravated circumstances; DHS offered appropriate services | Court: Sufficient evidence supports the subsequent-factors ground (and others); termination affirmed |
| Whether DHS offered appropriate family services to enable reunification | Caseworker failed to assist; Brown requested different caseworker and other help | DHS informed Brown of requirements, provided parenting materials, and services were appropriate; some outcomes depended on Brown’s compliance | Court: DHS offered appropriate services; Brown’s noncompliance/failure to remedy conditions justified termination |
| Whether reversal is required because only one ground must be proved | (Implicit) Even if one ground insufficient, others must be reexamined | Only one statutory ground need be proved to terminate parental rights | Court: Because subsequent-factors ground proved, no need to address other grounds; termination stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Posey v. Ark. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 370 Ark. 500, 262 S.W.3d 159 (clarifies clear-and-convincing standard and appellate review of termination orders)
- Earls v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2017 Ark. 171, 518 S.W.3d 81 (addressed necessity of prior adjudication of parental status)
- Miller v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2017 Ark. App. 396, 525 S.W.3d 48 (parental failure to follow court orders can be a subsequent factor)
- Jackson v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2013 Ark. App. 411, 429 S.W.3d 276 (reversed termination where DHS failed to contact or provide services to parent)
- Ponder v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. 261, 494 S.W.3d 426 (party may not complain of action they induced, consented to, or acquiesced in)
- Reid v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. 187, 380 S.W.3d 918 (only one statutory ground is required to support termination)
- Whitt v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 293, 461 S.W.3d 386 (procedural precedent on challenging trial-court actions after acquiescence)
- Gilliam v. Gilliam, 2010 Ark. App. 137, 374 S.W.3d 108 (consent/acquiescence principles)
- Martin v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2017 Ark. 115, 515 S.W.3d 599 (preservation of service-related arguments)
- Threadgill v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2017 Ark. App. 426, 526 S.W.3d 891 (service-offer sufficiency and preservation)
- R&L Carriers Shared Servs., LLC v. Markley, 2017 Ark. App. 240, 520 S.W.3d 268 (acquiescence and appellate review principles)