Campbell v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2017 Ark. App. 82
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Child A.F. (removed at age 6) was taken into emergency DHS custody after mother Jessica Campbell was arrested during a drug-related search where the child was present; Jessica tested positive for methamphetamine.
- DHS obtained probable cause and, by April 2015, the juvenile court adjudicated A.F. dependent-neglected and set reunification as the goal; Jessica was ordered to complete services (drug assessment/treatment, parenting classes), maintain housing/income/transportation, resolve criminal issues, submit to drug tests, and visit.
- Jessica intermittently complied: she completed parenting classes but failed to complete a drug-and-alcohol assessment, continued to lack stable housing/income/transportation, and tested positive for methamphetamine during the case; visits were sporadic.
- In February 2016 Jessica entered a negotiated guilty plea and was sentenced to four years in prison (plus six years suspended), and DHS changed the case goal to termination/adoption in March 2016.
- DHS filed to terminate parental rights; after a June 2016 hearing the trial court found three statutory grounds and that termination was in the child’s best interest, and entered an order terminating Jessica’s parental rights.
- Jessica appealed; appointed counsel filed a no-merit brief and motion to withdraw under Arkansas procedures for appeals of right where counsel finds no meritorious issues. The mother did not file timely pro se points.
Issues
| Issue | Jessica's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination under statutory grounds (esp. parental prison sentence substantial to child's life) | Termination improper because she expected early release and could reunify | Jessica’s four-year sentence (plus suspended time) constitutes a substantial period of the child’s life and prevents timely reunification | Court: Held for DHS; (b)(3)(B)(viii) satisfied—prison sentence, not projected release date, controls |
| Whether other statutory grounds support termination (continued out-of-home 12+ months, failure to remedy conditions; aggravated circumstances/little likelihood services will reunify) | Arguably no meaningful proof she remedied conditions | DHS: mother remained noncompliant with plan, continued substance use, lacked housing/income/transportation, and had unresolved criminal issues | Court: Found clear-and-convincing evidence of these grounds as well; at least one ground suffices |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interest | Mother: claims rehabilitation underway in custody and love for child; expects to regain custody after release | DHS: child is adoptable, mother’s past noncompliance and continued drug use risk child's safety; permanency needed | Court: Held termination was in child's best interest; trial court not clearly erroneous |
| Whether appellate counsel correctly moved to withdraw via no-merit brief under Arkansas procedure | (implicit) Counsel argues appeal frivolous; no meritorious points | DHS: supports affirmance based on record | Court: Agreed with counsel; appeal wholly without merit and counsel’s motion to withdraw granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (Ark. 2004) (procedural checklist for counsel/no-merit withdrawal and pro se rights)
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (Ark. 2001) (de novo standard of review for termination)
- Anderson v. Douglas, 310 Ark. 633, 839 S.W.2d 196 (Ark. 1992) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (Ark. 1997) (appellate review—whether finding was clearly erroneous)
- Yarborough v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 96 Ark. App. 247, 240 S.W.3d 626 (Ark. App. 2006) (clarifying clearly erroneous standard)
- Draper v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 112, 389 S.W.3d 58 (Ark. App. 2012) (only one statutory ground needed to support termination)
- Brumley v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. 356 (Ark. 2015) (prison sentence—not projected release—controls subsection (b)(3)(B)(viii) analysis)
- Mitchell v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2013 Ark. App. 715, 430 S.W.3d 851 (Ark. App. 2013) (statutory-best-interest requirement and burden of proof)