Butler v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2017 Ark. App. 517
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mother Crystal Butler was serving a five-year DOC sentence when she gave birth to nine-month-old twins; DHS took emergency custody soon after birth.
- Butler previously had five children in foster care and had her parental rights to those children involuntarily terminated.
- DHS adjudicated the twins as dependent-neglected and set concurrent goals of adoption, relative placement, and reunification.
- DHS petitioned to terminate Butler’s parental rights to the twins; a hearing was held where DHS presented the prior-termination order and evidence the twins were adoptable and that Butler lacked housing and income.
- Trial court found clear-and-convincing evidence of an aggravated circumstance (prior involuntary termination of siblings) and that termination was in the twins’ best interest due to adoptability and potential harm if returned to Butler.
- Butler appealed; appellate counsel filed a Linker-Flores no-merit brief and moved to withdraw; Butler filed no pro se points. The Court of Appeals affirmed and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Butler) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory ground for termination existed based on prior involuntary termination of siblings | Prior termination was not a valid ground because that termination was still pending on appeal | Prior-termination order was valid and dispositive; DHS introduced it without objection | Court held ground proved; prior termination was affirmed on separate appeal, so ground supports termination |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest (adoptability) | Termination not in best interest; Butler argued she would be released soon and reunification should be considered | Twins were adoptable and an adoptive family was identified; permanency favored termination | Court found adoptability supported termination as to best interest |
| Whether returning twins to Butler would pose potential harm | Butler argued she could secure placement at Hope House and requested more time | DHS showed Butler was incarcerated, lacked housing/income, and had history of losing custody; potential future harm existed | Court held forward-looking potential harm and lack of stability supported termination |
| Whether trial court should have delayed termination to allow Butler time to improve circumstances | Butler/trial counsel asked for months for Butler to ‘‘get back on her feet’’ | DHS argued permanency and stability for infants outweighed delay, and Butler’s parole prospects were uncertain | Court rejected delay; children had been out of mother’s care their whole lives and need for permanency prevailed |
Key Cases Cited
- Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (Ark. 2004) (procedure for court-appointed counsel to file no-merit brief and move to withdraw)
- Woodward v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 513 S.W.3d 284 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (de novo review and standards for termination appeals)
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (2001) (trial court’s credibility findings receive high deference)
- Myers v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 380 S.W.3d 906 (Ark. 2011) (best-interest factors: adoptability and potential harm)
- Draper v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 389 S.W.3d 58 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (only one statutory ground needed to terminate parental rights)