Canada v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 476
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Children L.C. (b. 2011) and J.C. (b. 2014) were taken into DHS custody after police found them in a parked car where the mother had used methamphetamine; appellant is the children’s legal father and was arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia.
- An affidavit noted prior domestic-battery arrests between appellant and the mother and an existing no-contact order; children adjudicated dependent-neglected on August 11, 2015.
- The court ordered appellant to complete drug-and-alcohol screening and treatment, parenting classes, anger management, obtain stable housing/employment, and resolve criminal issues.
- DHS filed for termination on grounds that (1) the children had been out of appellant’s home for 12+ months despite DHS’s meaningful efforts and appellant failed to remedy conditions, and (2) aggravated circumstances—little likelihood services would permit reunification.
- At the October 11, 2016 termination hearing appellant had a history of failed treatment attempts, limited participation (one week in current program), no steady housing or employment, probation for assault and paraphernalia possession, and had not seen the children since May 2016.
- The circuit court terminated appellant’s parental rights (Jan. 30, 2017), finding aggravated circumstances and that termination was in the children’s best interest (court considered adoptability and potential harm).
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination were proven (aggravated circumstances / failure to remedy) | Appellant argued he had completed parenting classes, counseling, anger management, and was in treatment, showing progress and potential for reunification. | DHS argued appellant had repeatedly failed treatment, lacked housing/employment, had ongoing criminal issues, and children had been in custody long enough that reunification was unlikely. | Court affirmed termination on aggravated-circumstances ground: evidence supported little likelihood services would lead to reunification. |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interest given lack of proof of adoptability | Appellant argued insufficient evidence of adoptability; thus best-interest finding was clearly erroneous. | DHS argued adoptability need not be proven; caseworker testified adoption was "reasonably likely" and the court may rely on that plus other factors. | Court held best-interest finding was not clearly erroneous; caseworker testimony and other factors supported likely adoption and adoption consideration was adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 476 S.W.3d 816 (Ark. App. 2015) (standard of review in TPR cases)
- Smith v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 431 S.W.3d 364 (Ark. App. 2013) (best-interest factors: adoptability and potential harm)
- Brown v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 478 S.W.3d 272 (Ark. App. 2015) (appellate standard for clear-error review of TPR findings)
- Henson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 434 S.W.3d 371 (Ark. App. 2014) (credibility determinations for factfinder)
- King v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 503 S.W.3d 874 (Ark. App. 2016) (only one statutory ground required to support termination)
- Ware v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 503 S.W.3d 874 (Ark. App. 2016) (discussing necessity of addressing multiple grounds)
- Miller v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 492 S.W.3d 113 (Ark. App. 2016) (adoptability is not an essential element; court must consider likelihood of adoption)
- Singleton v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 468 S.W.3d 809 (Ark. App. 2015) (DHS not required to identify specific adoptive parents at hearing)
- Haynes v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., ? (Ark. App. 2010) (absence of abundant adoptability evidence does not preclude consideration when other best-interest factors favor termination)