Brown v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 303
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- DHS filed emergency custody after nine-month-old R.B. was hospitalized with a subdural hematoma, skull fracture, and retinal hemorrhages; injuries consistent with shaken-baby syndrome and too severe to be explained by a fall from a bed.
- Trial court entered ex parte emergency custody and later adjudicated all four children dependent-neglected, finding R.B. was abused and suffered extreme cruelty while in mother Khaleelah Brown’s care.
- Mother was arrested and charged with first-degree battery; no contact between mother and children throughout proceedings. Father’s rights were also terminated but he is not a party to this appeal.
- DHS changed goal to termination/adoption after finding parents made no measurable progress; DHS petitioned to terminate mother’s parental rights.
- At termination hearing, medical testimony, a psychologist’s evaluation, DHS caseworker testimony, and an adoption specialist supported findings that children were adoptable and would be at risk if returned to mother.
- Trial court found termination was in children’s best interest and identified multiple statutory grounds (only one required); appellate counsel filed a Linker-Flores no-merit brief and moved to withdraw; mother filed no pro se points. Court affirmed and granted counsel’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Brown's Argument | DHS/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to terminate parental rights | (implicit) termination not supported by clear and convincing evidence | Medical, expert, and caseworker evidence show abuse, aggravated circumstances, and risk to children; termination in best interest | Affirmed — ample clear and convincing evidence; termination proper |
| Preclusion from challenging adjudication findings on appeal | Brown did not appeal adjudication order | Adjudication findings stand; unappealed findings preclude relitigation at termination appeal | Held — Brown’s failure to appeal adjudication precludes challenging those findings now |
| Admissibility of child’s positive hair-follicle drug test | Objection to admission (argued below) | Trial court admitted test; DHS relied on evidence | Ruled not an abuse of discretion; any error harmless |
| Ruling sustaining relevancy objection re: placement with maternal grandmother | Argues the question was relevant to placement alternatives | Court sustained objection as irrelevant to termination issues | Ruled not an abuse of discretion; no meritorious basis for reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (discussing no-merit appellate procedure in TPR appeals)
- Dinkins v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (standard of de novo review in TPR cases)
- Mitchell v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 430 S.W.3d 851 (Ark. Ct. App.) (statutory requirements for termination)
- J.T. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (standard for appellate review of clear-and-convincing findings)
- Yarborough v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 96 Ark. App. 247, 240 S.W.3d 626 (definition of clearly erroneous review)
- Draper v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 389 S.W.3d 58 (Ark. Ct. App.) (only one statutory ground required to support termination)
- Houseman v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 491 S.W.3d 153 (Ark. Ct. App.) (procedural treatment of omitted adverse rulings in no-merit briefs)
- Holloway v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 468 S.W.3d 805 (Ark. Ct. App.) (preclusion from challenging unappealed adjudication findings)