Burleson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 616
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- DHS removed three children from Patricia Burleson’s home in January 2016 after police found the home in squalor, Burleson tested positive for THC, and the parents were unaware the front door was open and one child was missing. Burleson stipulated to probable cause.
- The children were adjudicated dependent-neglected in March 2016; the court ordered a case plan including drug screens, parenting classes, counseling, psychological and substance assessments, stable housing and employment, and cooperation with DHS.
- Through much of 2016 Burleson was largely noncompliant: DHS lost contact with her for long periods, she had positive drug tests (including meth), multiple suicide attempts, unstable housing and employment, and sporadic visitation.
- A permanency-planning order (Dec. 2016) authorized adoption; Burleson only began substantial compliance in December 2016 and completed psychological and substance assessments in Feb. 2017—shortly before the termination hearing.
- Evidence at the April 2017 termination hearing showed ongoing instability (recent arrest, recent live-in boyfriend, mental-health diagnoses, past domestic incident), children’s behavioral harm linked to sporadic contact, and placement with maternal grandmother where children were doing well and were adoptable.
- The circuit court terminated Burleson’s parental rights, finding three statutory grounds proven and that termination was in the children’s best interest; the court emphasized the children’s need for permanency and risk of harm if returned.
Issues
| Issue | Burleson’s Argument | DHS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved at least one statutory ground for termination | DHS did not prove grounds; Burleson had recent progress and never physically harmed children | Grounds proven: continued out-of-home placement despite DHS efforts; subsequent factors showing return is contrary to children’s welfare; willful failure to maintain contact/support | Court affirmed termination; at least one ground (subsequent factors) was proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interest | Termination contrary to policy because children were safe with relatives, wanted contact, and mother made marked late progress | Children needed permanency; sporadic visitation and instability harmed children; adoption likely and safer | Court held termination was in children’s best interest given harm risk and likelihood of adoption |
| Whether late compliance by mother precluded termination | Recent compliance showed rehabilitative potential and argued for more time | Eleventh-hour compliance insufficient; long history of noncompliance and instability outweighed late progress | Court found late efforts insufficient to overcome prior failure to follow plan and protect children’s need for stability |
| Whether the trial court clearly erred in weighing evidence | Burleson argued record did not support clear-and-convincing finding | DHS relied on testimony about children’s harm, mother’s instability, and adoption potential | Court not left with firm conviction of error; affirmed termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (standard: termination requires clear and convincing evidence)
- Pratt v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 413 S.W.3d 261 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Gossett v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 374 S.W.3d 205 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (proof of one statutory ground suffices for termination)
- Fredrick v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 377 S.W.3d 306 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (child’s need for permanency can override parent's request for more time)
- Brumley v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. 356 (termination can be appropriate to secure child stability and permanency)