Chaffin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2015 Ark. App. 522
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- DHS removed four children from parental custody in July 2013 after unsafe conditions and the father’s methamphetamine use; children adjudicated dependent-neglected and placed with DHS.
- DHS approved a case plan requiring Sherri Chaffin to complete psychological evaluation and counseling, parenting classes, stable employment and housing, and to demonstrate parenting skills.
- Over 18 months, Chaffin partially complied (evaluation) but largely failed: dropped counseling, missed parenting classes or belatedly produced proof, never obtained employment, had housing instability, limited visitation, and a short incarceration for writing bad checks.
- DHS filed to terminate parental rights; a January 2015 hearing was held with counsel appointed for parents; the trial court terminated Chaffin’s parental rights.
- Trial court found statutory grounds under Ark. Code § 9-27-341(b)(1)(B)(i)(a) (failure to remedy) and (b)(1)(B)(vii)(a) (other factors arising after petition) and found termination was in the children’s best interest based on stability, adoptability, and potential harm if returned.
Issues
| Issue | Chaffin's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of statutory grounds for termination ("other factors") | Petition/testimony didn’t specify what "other factors" arose after petition; record doesn’t support the finding | Trial court’s factual findings and presumption that necessary findings were made; appellant did not preserve objection | Court affirmed; appellant failed to timely object or request specific findings, leaving the ground unchallenged and sufficient |
| Best interest of the children | Chaffin asked for more time/services; claimed recent compliance, housing, and counseling | Children need permanency; Chaffin lacked stable housing, employment, consistent compliance, and children were adoptable and did not want to return | Court affirmed; clear-and-convincing evidence supported that termination served children’s need for permanency and avoided potential harm |
| Right to appointed counsel at early dependency stages | Chaffin contended she was not appointed counsel early enough in the dependency-neglect proceedings | Statute entitles appointed counsel when custody is removed only for the parent "from whom custody was removed" and requires request/indigency; counsel was appointed before termination hearing | Court held no entitlement to appointed counsel earlier here; no timely request shown; any defect was harmless because counsel appeared before termination hearing |
| Standard of review / appellate challenge scope | Argued trial court erred factually | DHS relied on clear-and-convincing standard and deference to trial court credibility findings | Court applied clear-and-convincing standard and deference to trial court; did not find clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- Harbin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 451 S.W.3d 231 (2014) (two-step termination analysis and best-interest standard)
- Lively v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 456 S.W.3d 383 (2015) (unchallenged statutory ground suffices on appeal)
- Fox v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 448 S.W.3d 735 (2014) (best-interest analysis may rely on potential harm and is forward-looking)
- Welch v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 378 S.W.3d 290 (2010) (trial court not required to identify specific potential harm)
- Hall v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 413 S.W.3d 542 (2012) (conclusory appellate arguments insufficient to preserve issue)
- Briscoe v. State, 912 S.W.2d 425 (1996) (appointment-of-counsel defects may be harmless if counsel appears before termination hearing)
- Jefferson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 158 S.W.3d 129 (2004) (same)