Burkett v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2016 Ark. App. 570
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- Father Michael Burkett was criminally charged with sexual offenses after his son M.B. disclosed oral and other sexual contact while visiting his mother’s home; DHS removed M.B. and A.B. and obtained emergency custody.
- Forensic interview and child testimony implicated Burkett; another nephew also alleged abuse; Burkett was arrested and charged with rape.
- DHS filed for adjudication (dependent-neglected) and a joint petition to terminate Burkett’s parental rights; hearings were consolidated and set for April 19, 2016.
- Burkett, incarcerated on a $200,000 bond and facing unresolved criminal charges, moved to stay the juvenile proceedings (or alternatively to seal his testimony), asserting Fifth and Sixth Amendment concerns; the trial court denied the stay and confirmed the juvenile proceedings were closed/ sealed.
- Burkett invoked the Fifth Amendment at the hearing; the juvenile court adjudicated the children dependent-neglected, found aggravated circumstances (sexual abuse and low likelihood of reunification), credited M.B., and terminated Burkett’s parental rights.
- On appeal Burkett challenged only the denial of his motion to stay; he did not challenge the adjudication or termination findings themselves.
Issues
| Issue | Burkett’s Argument | DHS/State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying a stay of adjudication/termination pending related criminal proceedings | A stay was necessary because Burkett would invoke the Fifth Amendment and be unable to defend himself in juvenile proceedings, risking penalization for asserting constitutional rights | Children’s need for timely permanency and stability outweighs an indefinite delay; juveniles’ best interests control and proceedings were closed/sealed | Denial of stay was not an abuse of discretion; child’s interest in timely permanency prevailed |
| Whether denying the stay violated Burkett’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel in his criminal trial | Proceeding would undermine criminal defense by allowing civil-admissible evidence to be used and impair cross-examination strategy at criminal trial | Speculative; criminal trial not set; court cannot pre-evaluate trial counsel’s future effectiveness; juvenile interests predominate | Denial was not an abuse of discretion because the Sixth Amendment claim was speculative and unpreserved as to counsel effectiveness at juvenile hearing |
| Whether sealing the juvenile record was required to protect Burkett’s rights | Requested sealing or protective order to prevent civil testimony from affecting criminal case | Court noted proceedings were already closed/sealed; any appellate transcript would remain under seal unless unsealed on appeal | Court properly maintained closed/sealed status; did not err in refusing additional sealing relief |
| Whether any prejudice resulted from denying the continuance | Denial would unfairly prejudice Burkett’s ability to contest adjudication/termination while invoking Fifth Amendment | Appellant did not show prejudice; termination also rested on incarceration-related inability to work a reunification plan, independent of testimony | No prejudice shown; alternative grounds for termination mitigated any claimed harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 93 Ark. App. 395, 219 S.W.3d 705 (Ark. App. 2005) (standard for reviewing denial of continuance in termination proceedings)
- Dozier v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 17, 372 S.W.3d 849 (Ark. App. 2010) (children’s need for permanency may override parent’s request for more time)
- Martin v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 407, 465 S.W.3d 881 (appellate review requires showing of prejudice from denial of continuance)
- Hunter v. State, 330 Ark. 198, 952 S.W.2d 145 (failure to state specific grounds in circuit court forfeits appellate review)