Bryant v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2011 Ark. App. 390
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- DHS filed emergency custody on October 8, 2009 after Bryant and the child’s father were arrested on drug charges; A.F. was placed in the custody of her paternal aunt.
- At first, the circuit court sought reunification and required Bryant to comply with drug treatment, random screens, stable housing and employment, and counseling.
- May 2010 review kept reunification as the goal and noted Bryant had completed inpatient treatment but failed to complete aftercare.
- July 2, 2010 order required Bryant to pursue outpatient treatment, pass weekly drug screens, maintain stable employment and housing, and keep utilities on.
- October 1, 2010 permanency order changed the goal to adoption, directing DHS to file for termination of parental rights; DHS filed that petition on October 8, 2010.
- At the November 5, 2010 termination hearing, the DHS caseworker testified Bryant did not consistently attend visits, had unstable employment, and showed a pattern of evasiveness and alleged drug-test tampering; the child’s aunt and uncle and Angela Carter sought to adopt; the court found termination proper and adopted a plan for permanent custody with relatives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was proper where a relative custody arrangement existed. | Bryant argues termination was inappropriate due to the relative placement. | DHS argues termination was warranted to protect A.F.’s best interests despite relative care. | Termination affirmed; best interests supported by failure to achieve reunification and risk to child. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 278 S.W.3d 609 (Ark. App. 2008) (high deference to trial court in termination cases; best interests standard)
- Dowdy v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 314 S.W.3d 722 (Ark. App. 2009) (parental rights are terminated only to protect child health and welfare)
- Friend v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 S.W.3d 670 (Ark. App. 2009) (clear and convincing evidence required for termination)
- Strickland v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 287 S.W.3d 633 (Ark. App. 2008) (termination requires clear and convincing evidence and best interests analysis)
- Lamontagne v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 366 S.W.3d 351 (Ark. 2010) (preservation and standard of review for termination decisions)