Brumley v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2015 Ark. 356
| Ark. | 2015Background
- G.B., born 2004, was removed from his mother’s care in October 2012 after the mother’s arrest; father George Brumley was incarcerated at removal and remained imprisoned through the case.
- DHS placed the child with relatives; permanency plan initially sought reunification but later changed to adoption after findings that Brumley had minimally participated and remained incarcerated.
- Court-ordered tasks for Brumley included counseling, drug screens, parenting classes, and securing stable housing and employment; he completed some in-prison programs but had no stable housing or drug screens and had not seen the child since about 2007.
- DHS filed to terminate Brumley’s parental rights alleging multiple statutory grounds, including (a) child out of parent’s custody 12 months despite DHS efforts, (b) subsequent factors after the original petition making placement contrary to the child’s welfare, and (c) a prison sentence constituting a substantial portion of the child’s life.
- The circuit court terminated Brumley’s rights (relying on the 12‑month and subsequent‑factors grounds); the Arkansas Supreme Court granted review, conducted de novo review, and affirmed termination based principally on the imprisonment ground and best-interest findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brumley) | Defendant's Argument (DHS/G.B.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination may be based on incarceration as a statutory ground | Incarceration predates removal; Brumley was close to release and incarceration alone should not support termination | Incarceration that comprises a substantial part of the child’s life supports termination; imprisonment does not excuse parental duties | Court affirmed: imprisonment constituted a substantial portion of the nine‑year‑old’s life and supports termination |
| Whether the 12‑month ground applies when parent was noncustodial/incarcerated | Brumley: not responsible for initial removal; cannot be held to failure‑to‑remedy ground for conditions he did not cause | DHS: parent failed to comply with court orders/case plan post‑removal | Court did not rely on this ground (affirmed on imprisonment ground alone) |
| Whether the subsequent‑factors ground applies when incarceration predated removal | Brumley: subsequent‑factors must arise after petition; incarceration was known at removal and he showed efforts (classes, support) | DHS: failure to comply with post‑removal court orders and inability/indifference to provide a home are subsequent factors | Concurring justice would affirm on subsequent‑factors; majority affirmed on imprisonment ground and found best interest satisfied (did not rely on this ground) |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interest | Brumley: was providing support, had release imminent, had a plan, and termination severs important family ties | DHS/G.B.: child is adoptable; continued incarceration and lack of stability pose potential harm; permanency is in child’s interest | Court held termination was in the child’s best interest (adoptability + potential harm from lack of stability) |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 330 Ark. 152 (1997) (imprisonment not automatically dispositive in termination cases)
- Dinkins v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 344 Ark. 207 (2001) (de novo review standard in termination appeals)
- Baker v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 340 Ark. 42 (2000) (clear‑and‑convincing evidence standard explained)
- Moore v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 333 Ark. 288 (1998) (affirming termination where long prison sentence constituted substantial portion of child’s life)
- Linker‑Flores v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 364 Ark. 224 (2005) (incarceration does not toll parental responsibilities)
- Bearden v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 344 Ark. 317 (2001) (permanency is a central objective of termination proceedings)