Cheney v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2012 Ark. App. 209
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- DHS petitioned for emergency custody of S.C., J.C., and D.C. on May 20, 2009 after Mika’s May 18, 2009 drug-arrest conduct and positive methamphetamine use; children observed with filthy conditions.
- An amended petition for emergency custody and dependency-neglect was filed on August 3, 2009 after DHS took a 72-hour hold on the children following drug tests during a July 27, 2009 home visit.
- An adjudication on October 13, 2009 found the children dependent-neglected based on a stipulation that the facts in the August 3, 2009 affidavit were true, with reunification as the goal.
- Review orders on December 29, 2009 and March 11, 2010 continued DHS custody and reunification as the goal, adding visitation and psychological testing requirements.
- A CASA report dated June 18, 2010 highlighted missed visits and Jason’s arrest on meth-related charges; by July 1, 2010, the goal remained reunification but Mika’s compliance was questioned, and Jason’s noncompliance grew evident.
- After a 15-month review, the circuit court changed the goal to termination of parental rights with a concurrent goal of adoption at an order entered January 6, 2011; on March 2, 2011, DHS and the children's attorney ad litem filed a joint petition for termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was proven by clear and convincing evidence. | Mika’s drug-use issues were unresolved; DHS showed failure to remedy conditions and substantial noncompliance. | DHS failed to prove termination grounds or best interests beyond reasonable doubt. | Yes; termination supported by clear and convincing evidence and in children's best interests. |
| Whether Mika’s no-merit appeal should be withdrawn and the termination affirmed. | N/A for Mika; no-merit dismissal justified. | Counsel filed a valid no-merit brief and withdrawal should be granted. | Mika’s termination affirmed; counsel’s withdrawal granted. |
| Whether Jason’s arguments regarding reasonable efforts and incarceration were preserved and warranted reversal. | Jason waived substantial reasonable-efforts arguments by not appealing earlier orders; arguments fail on merits. | Waiver plus lack of specific services during incarceration undermines claim; ultimate termination supported by risk factors. | Ambit of waiver affirmed; termination upheld for Jason. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fields v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 104 Ark.App. 37, 289 S.W.3d 134 (Ark. App. 2008) (clear and convincing evidence required; best interest and grounds)
- Sparkman v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 96 Ark.App. 363, 242 S.W.3d 282 (Ark. App. 2006) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Lewis v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 364 Ark. 243, 217 S.W.3d 788 (Ark. 2005) (motion to withdraw no-merit brief; reversible error standard)
- Anderson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 526, 385 S.W.3d 373 (Ark. App. 2011) (waiver and preservation of issues on appeal)
- Sartin v. State, 2010 Ark. 16, 362 S.W.3d 877 (Ark. 2010) (requires briefing to preserve issues; omissions may require rebriefing in some contexts)
- Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Department of Human Services (I), 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (Ark. 2004) (Rule 6-9 no-merit procedure applicability)