Canada v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2016 Ark. App. 564
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- DHS removed three children (H.A., B.C., M.C.) after H.A. reported sexual abuse and methamphetamine use by her stepfather, Brett Canada, Sr.; H.A. placed with maternal grandmother Marilyn Palmer, B.C. and M.C. with paternal grandmother Karen Canada.
- Circuit court adjudicated the children dependent-neglected, finding Larichia Canada failed to protect H.A.; court ordered services (parenting classes, random drug screens, psychological evaluation, counseling), suitable housing/income, and no contact with Brett.
- Larichia completed parenting classes and a psychological evaluation but failed to maintain adequate housing/income, missed drug assessment/screens (including an attempted alteration), failed to comply with counseling, and lost contact with DHS.
- Evidence showed Larichia continued contact with Brett during the case (observed together December 16, 2015), including at a home where two children were placed; Brett was ordered no contact with H.A.
- At the permanency-planning hearing, DHS testified Larichia was noncompliant and unreachable; the court found DHS made reasonable efforts, awarded permanent custody of H.A. to Marilyn Palmer and of B.C. and M.C. to Karen Canada, granted supervised visitation to Larichia, and closed the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the permanency-planning order awarding permanent custody to grandparents was clearly erroneous | Larichia argued the court’s decision was erroneous and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting permanent custody | DHS argued Larichia failed to comply with court-ordered services, remained in contact with an abusive party, and thus returning children was unsafe; DHS had made reasonable efforts | Court affirmed: findings were supported by evidence; not clearly erroneous or against preponderance of evidence |
| Whether DHS made reasonable efforts toward reunification | Larichia contended DHS did not properly facilitate reunification | DHS maintained it provided services and attempted contact; Larichia’s noncompliance and loss of contact impeded reunification | Court found DHS had made reasonable efforts |
| Whether Larichia’s contact with Brett justified denying reunification | Larichia disputed that observed contact warranted denying custody | DHS pointed to observed contact with Brett and Larichia’s failure to follow no-contact order as safety risk | Court held contact and noncompliance supported conclusion that return would be unsafe |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in weighing credibility and best interests | Larichia argued the court misassessed credibility and best interests | DHS emphasized the trial court’s superior position to judge witnesses and children’s best interests | Court applied deference to trial judge and found no abuse; decision affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 385 S.W.3d 367 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011) (burden of proof in dependency-neglect proceedings is by a preponderance of the evidence)
- Churchill v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 423 S.W.3d 637 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (standard of review is de novo with due deference to trial court’s credibility determinations in dependency matters)