Brown v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2015 Ark. App. 725
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- DHS received a hotline report that Jennifer Brown was using methamphetamine while caring for eight‑month‑old S.B.; a protection plan initially allowed the child to remain with Brown.
- The next day Brown reported S.B. missing; the father, Frederick Brown, was found with the child and tested positive for multiple drugs; DHS removed S.B. and obtained an emergency custody order.
- A CHRIS check revealed Jennifer Brown previously had an involuntary termination of parental rights to another child.
- DHS filed a petition to terminate Jennifer Brown’s parental rights less than a week after removal; adjudication and termination hearings were held simultaneously and the court terminated Brown’s rights.
- On appeal Brown did not contest the statutory ground (prior involuntary termination) but challenged the court’s best‑interest analysis, arguing the trial court failed to consider adoptability and wrongly excluded evidence distinguishing the present case from Brown’s prior case.
Issues
| Issue | Brown's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court considered adoptability as part of best‑interest analysis | Court failed to consider adoptability; reversal required | Implicitly urged that adoptability was not necessary here | Court agreed adoptability was not addressed and this was reversible error |
| Whether the court abused its discretion by excluding evidence distinguishing this child from prior case | Excluded evidence about S.B. (e.g., not born with drugs) was relevant to best interest and should have been admitted | Relied on Brown’s prior DHS history; argued the exclusion was proper | Court held exclusion was an abuse of discretion because evidence about the specific parent–child relationship is relevant |
| Whether prior involuntary termination alone supported best‑interest finding | Brown argued reliance on past termination without current evidence of harm to this child was insufficient | DHS relied on prior involuntary termination as statutory ground and supporting best interest | Court accepted the statutory ground but found best‑interest analysis insufficient without adoptability and additional relevant evidence |
| Remedy: whether reversal or affirmance required | Brown sought reversal and remand for proper best‑interest consideration | DHS urged affirmance of termination | Court reversed and remanded for reconsideration after admission of relevant evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Linker‑Flores v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (Ark. 2004) (procedural standard on no‑merit briefing and counsel withdrawal)
- Cheney v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 396 S.W.3d 272 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (de novo review and standard for termination decisions)
- Pratt v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 413 S.W.3d 261 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (clear and convincing evidence standard; review for clear error)
- Smith v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 431 S.W.3d 364 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013) (best‑interest factors for termination: adoptability and potential harm)
- Harper v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 884 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011) (same best‑interest framework)
- Grant v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 227 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (adoptability is a consideration, not a prerequisite)
- Holmes v. State, 441 S.W.3d 916 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)