Bynum v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
528 S.W.3d 859
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- DHS removed Z.L. (b. 12/30/2013) after mother Molly Bynum threatened to kill herself and the child and father tested positive for methamphetamine; Z.L. adjudicated dependent-neglected in 2014.
- While Z.L.’s case was pending, H.B. (b. 8/26/2015) was removed and adjudicated dependent-neglected in 2015 due to unresolved maternal mental-health issues and risk factors.
- Parents received case plans requiring mental-health treatment, stable housing, drug-free status, and compliance with court orders; services were provided but the children remained out of the home for more than 12 months.
- Psychological evaluation showed mother had low intellectual functioning (IQ ~62), seizure disorder, untreated or partially treated mental-health conditions, and limited capacity to parent independently; mother quit a day‑treatment program and had unstable housing and spotty visitation (36 of 98 visits).
- DHS petitioned to terminate parental rights (grounds included failure to remedy, subsequent factors, aggravated circumstances); the trial court found three statutory grounds proved by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
- Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, giving deference to trial-court credibility findings and concluding sufficient evidence supported the subsequent‑factors ground and the best‑interest finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of statutory grounds for termination (e.g., failure to remedy; subsequent factors; aggravated circumstances) | Bynum: she addressed mental‑health issues, left abusive partner, obtained stable housing and income, would accept one‑on‑one therapy; thus grounds not proved. | DHS: mother repeatedly failed to comply with case plan, quit ordered day treatment, had unstable housing, ongoing mental‑health and domestic‑violence issues — subsequent factors rendered placement contrary to children’s welfare. | Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported termination under the subsequent‑factors ground (failure to comply with court orders); only one ground required. |
| Best interest / potential harm from returning children | Bynum: children are adoptable but she argued termination unnecessary because potential harm was not shown; she claimed improvements. | DHS: mother’s history of untreated mental illness, quitting treatment, unstable housing, limited parenting capacity, and inconsistent visitation show risk of potential harm; past behavior predicts future risk. | Affirmed — trial court properly found termination was in the children’s best interests based on risk of potential harm and adoptability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Posey v. Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 370 Ark. 500 (2007) (defines clear-and-convincing standard and appellate review in TPR cases)
- Reid v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. 187 (2011) (only one statutory ground is necessary to support termination)