Choate v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 319
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parents Lisa and Roderick (Rod) Choate divorced in 2015; divorce awarded custody to Lisa with supervised visitation to Rod. The family later lived together again in Oklahoma before Arkansas authorities assumed jurisdiction after emergency removal in June 2015.
- Oklahoma authorities cited concerns including Rod’s reported history with pornography and an allegation he had an erection while holding one child; no criminal charges resulted from the record.
- Arkansas adjudicated the children dependent-neglected in August 2015; the adjudication form referenced neglect/parental unfitness, noting mother’s instability and alleged failure to follow the divorce visitation order and father’s prior pornography addiction.
- DHS placed the children with maternal grandparents; caseworkers recommended termination, citing parental instability, insufficient progress, and concerns about Rod’s pornography history and potential sexual threat.
- At the September 2016 termination hearing, witnesses (therapist, DHS worker, grandparents) described children’s sexualized behaviors and emotional issues; Rod admitted a single prior instance of viewing child pornography years before the children were born and acknowledged an adult-porn addiction he was treating.
- The trial court terminated both parents’ rights based on two statutory grounds—failure to remedy and subsequent factors—but the Court of Appeals reversed as clearly erroneous after de novo review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Parents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rod — Failure to remedy: whether parents failed to remedy conditions causing removal (housing, employment, pornography) | DHS: Rod had prior pornography addiction and unstable housing/employment, and parents hadn’t remedied conditions after 12+ months | Rod: DHS failed to prove instability; caseworker admitted lack of firsthand knowledge; Rod maintained employment (Dairy Queen) and stable residence | Reversed — court erred; DHS did not prove failure to remedy by clear and convincing evidence |
| Rod — Subsequent factors: whether post-petition factors make placement contrary to children’s welfare (e.g., sexual threat) | DHS: Subsequent concerns (remarriage to mother, therapist concerns, past pornography, alleged sexualized conduct) show Rod is unfit and a threat | Rod: Allegations were unproven; admissions were remote or involved adult pornography; DHS failed to produce facts showing current threat; burden is on DHS to prove unfitness | Reversed — no clear-and-convincing proof of subsequent factors as to Rod |
| Lisa — Failure to remedy: whether mother failed to remedy conditions (housing, employment, failure to protect) | DHS: Lisa lacked housing/employment stability and violated visitation order by allowing contact with Rod | Lisa: DHS’s caseworker lacked personal knowledge; Lisa was on disability; DHS did not show facts proving instability or that she failed to protect the children from a proven threat | Reversed — DHS did not meet burden to show failure to remedy for Lisa |
| Lisa — Subsequent factors: whether her remarriage to Rod constitutes a subsequent factor making placement contrary to children’s welfare | DHS: Lisa’s decision to remarry and live with Rod (alleged threat) shows incapacity/indifference to protect children | Lisa: DHS failed to prove Rod posed a threat; her remarriage alone is insufficient to terminate parental rights without proof of danger | Reversed — insufficient evidence that remarriage to Rod proved subsequent factors against Lisa |
Key Cases Cited
- Guthrey v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 510 S.W.3d 793 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (de novo review and clear-and-convincing standard in termination appeals)