Bryant v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
554 S.W.3d 295
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- Child Z.B. was adjudicated dependent-neglected and removed from the mother's custody in May 2015; the child never resided with appellant Ryan Bryant and remained out of his home for over 28 months.
- DHS provided services to Bryant over the case (including parent-child counseling), and Bryant completed many services though there were some delays and additional time was granted.
- At a May 30, 2017 permanency-planning hearing the court found Bryant not credible, noted material misrepresentations about his housing and relationships, and found he allowed contact between Z.B. and the child’s biological mother (Annette Hughes) despite a court no-contact order.
- DHS filed a third petition to terminate Bryant’s parental rights (July 2017); a termination hearing occurred September 15, 2017.
- Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that (1) failure-to-remedy, (2) subsequent-factors, and (3) aggravated-circumstances grounds were proven, and that termination was in Z.B.’s best interest (child adoptable and potential harm if returned to Bryant).
- Appellant appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for the statutory grounds and that termination was not in the child’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Bryant's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supported aggravated-circumstances ground (court finding of little likelihood services will lead to reunification / aggravated circumstances) | Guthrey controls; credibility alone insufficient; Bryant completed ordered services and had a favorable recent home study | Multiple witnesses and facts (unauthorized contact with mother, foster testimony, material lies about housing, prior aggravated finding) supported aggravated-circumstances finding | Affirmed — court did not rely solely on credibility; record supported aggravated-circumstances finding by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether other statutory grounds (failure-to-remedy and subsequent-factors) were proven | Completed services and approved home study show conditions remedied | Despite services, conditions and credibility issues persisted; child out of home >12 months; subsequent factors (unauthorized contact, instability) showed incapacity or indifference | Court’s findings on these grounds were supported; but only one ground was required, so appellate decision rests on aggravated-circumstances |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interest (potential-harm factor) | Court’s finding that Bryant would again allow contact with mother is speculative and conjectural | Past conduct (defying no-contact order, instructing child to conceal contact), instability, and adoptability of child support a finding of potential harm and need for permanency | Affirmed — potential-harm analysis may be broad; past actions over meaningful time supported risk and need for permanency |
| Standard of review — whether trial court clearly erred | Bryant asks for reweighing of evidence to overturn termination | Appellate review is de novo but gives deference to trial court credibility findings; reversal only if clearly erroneous | Affirmed — appellate court left trial court’s credibility and factual findings intact under clear-error standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Posey v. Ark. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 370 Ark. 500, 262 S.W.3d 159 (standard of clear-and-convincing proof; appellate deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Guthrey v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 510 S.W.3d 793 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (credibility alone cannot substitute for substantive evidence supporting termination)
- Ewasiuk v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 540 S.W.3d 318 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018) (reaffirming limits on relying solely on credibility findings)
- Sharks v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 502 S.W.3d 569 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (potential-harm factor requires broad, forward-looking analysis; permanency may override additional time)
- Miller v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 525 S.W.3d 48 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (child’s need for permanency weighed against parent’s request for more time)
- Reid v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 380 S.W.3d 918 (Ark. 2011) (only one statutory ground is required to support termination)