Brown v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 67
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Edna Brown, hospitalized after car accidents, was diagnosed with severe neurocognitive disorder/vascular dementia and found to need 24-hour supervised care.
- DHS filed for emergency custody and later sought long-term protective custody under the Adult Maltreatment Custody Act.
- Nurse Spaunhurst and Dr. Elangwe testified about Edna’s mental incapacity, need for placement, and finances (monthly benefits, bank balances, vehicle damage, and an insurance check).
- The circuit court found by clear and convincing evidence that Edna lacked capacity, had no suitable caregiver, and ordered placement in a rehabilitation facility and that Edna’s income and certain assets be placed in the facility trust.
- Edna’s counsel was barred from cross-examining the nurse about additional assets based on Ark. Code Ann. § 9-20-108(f)(1) (limiting public defender representation to liberty issues, not fiscal matters).
- On appeal Edna contended (1) her family did not receive statutorily required notice and (2) trial counsel was wrongly prevented from cross-examining about assets; the Court of Appeals found both issues unpreserved and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice to next of kin under Adult Maltreatment Custody Act | Brown: statute requires notice to next of kin in probate form; notice was not given | DHS: issue was not raised below; family appeared at hearing | Not preserved on appeal; forfeited; affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence re: lack of available caregiver | Brown: lack of notice meant DHS could not prove no caregiver willing/able | DHS: sufficiency argument not raised below and lacks supporting authority | Not preserved and inadequately briefed; affirmed |
| Exclusion of cross-exam on additional assets | Brown: court misapplied statute and exclusion violated rights; counsel needed to probe assets | DHS/Court: public-defender statute limits counsel to liberty issues; objection sustained | Not preserved; no offer of proof; no prejudice shown; affirmed |
| Requirement to proffer excluded evidence for appellate review | Brown: exclusion harmed her case | DHS/Court: absent proffer, appellate court cannot assess prejudice | Court: failure to proffer precludes review of excluded evidence; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Doran v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 442 S.W.3d 868 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review in probate/probate-adjacent matters)
- Hall v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 413 S.W.3d 542 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (failure to raise issue below forfeits appellate review)
- Walters v. Dobbins, 370 S.W.3d 209 (Ark. 2010) (appellate courts will not consider issues without supporting legal authority)
- Raymond v. State, 118 S.W.3d 567 (Ark. 2003) (constitutional issues must be raised and ruled on below to preserve appeal)
- Davis v. State, 86 S.W.3d 872 (Ark. 2002) (reversal for evidentiary rulings requires showing of prejudice)
- Wymer v. Hutto, 442 S.W.3d 912 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (need to proffer excluded evidence for appellate review)
- Parkerson v. Brown, 430 S.W.3d 864 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013) (failure to proffer excluded evidence precludes review)