Caldwell v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2016 Ark. App. 144
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- C.C., born 2006, was removed from his paternal grandmother Mary Beck in Aug. 2014 after allegations she sexually abused him and tested positive for multiple substances; DHS filed dependency-neglect petition and obtained emergency custody.
- Father Bobby Caldwell had legal custody but had allowed C.C. to live with Beck; the trial court adjudicated C.C. dependent-neglected and found Caldwell failed to provide proper care.
- DHS sought termination of reunification services and later filed to terminate Caldwell’s parental rights; the circuit court changed the case goal to adoption and later terminated Caldwell’s rights in Aug. 2015.
- The circuit court found statutory grounds for termination (aggravated circumstances and subsequent factors showing return would be contrary to the child’s welfare despite services) and concluded termination was in C.C.’s best interest.
- At trial, the caseworker testified C.C. had behavioral issues requiring diagnosis and treatment but opined C.C. was adoptable once treated; the court found Caldwell had been largely absent, noncompliant with the case plan, unemployed, and unaware of C.C.’s medical needs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Caldwell) | Defendant's Argument (DHS/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was credible evidence C.C. was likely adoptable | Caseworker admitted adoptability would be challenging and C.C.’s behavioral problems make adoption unlikely | Caseworker testified C.C. is adoptable once properly diagnosed/treated; that testimony was credible | Court held adoptability need not be proven by clear and convincing evidence; caseworker’s credible opinion supported likely adoptability |
| Whether returning C.C. to Caldwell posed potential harm | Caldwell argued no proof of potential harm; resources could be used while he parented C.C. | DHS pointed to Caldwell’s absence, lack of participation, no home or income, and unawareness of C.C.’s needs as forward-looking risks and lack of stability | Court held potential harm need not be specifically identified; forward-looking instability and Caldwell’s indifference supported best-interest finding |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interest under clear-and-convincing standard | Caldwell argued insufficient credible evidence on best-interest factors (adoptability, potential harm) | Trial court relied on credible caseworker testimony and Caldwell’s noncompliance and absence to find best interest met by clear and convincing evidence | Court affirmed: termination was not clearly erroneous and was in C.C.’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Schaible v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 444 S.W.3d 366 (Ark. App. 2014) (standard for termination appeals and requirement of statutory ground plus best-interest finding)
- Ford v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 434 S.W.3d 378 (Ark. App. 2014) (best-interest factors: adoptability and potential harm)
- Hamman v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 435 S.W.3d 495 (Ark. App. 2014) (adoptability need not be proved by clear and convincing evidence; caseworker testimony can suffice)
- Grant v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 227 (Ark. App. 2010) (insufficient adoptability finding where only generalized testimony asserted all children are adoptable)
- Lively v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 456 S.W.3d 383 (Ark. App. 2015) (reversal where no evidence of adoptability was presented)
- Welch v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 290 (Ark. App. 2010) (potential harm need not be identified as actual harm; forward-looking harm standard)
- McFarland v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 210 S.W.3d 143 (Ark. App. 2005) (appellate deference to trial court credibility determinations)