Clark v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
575 S.W.3d 578
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Mother Misty Clark’s parental rights to children J.S. and A.S. were terminated by the Washington County Circuit Court in Aug. 2018; the court found termination was in the children’s best interest and favored adoption by their Arkansas foster parents.
- The children have a younger sibling (K.C.) living with his father in Arkansas and another sibling (A.W.) in Texas; the circuit court emphasized preserving frequent contact with K.C. as a reason to keep J.S. and A.S. in-state.
- Maternal grandparents James and Bari Sargent (Indiana) completed an approved ICPC home study and repeatedly sought placement and contact; DHS’s written report recommended termination but DHS’s case supervisor testified during the hearing that DHS recommended placement with the grandparents.
- The children’s therapist and the CASA volunteer expressed concerns about severing sibling bonds but acknowledged the children’s attachment to their foster family; the therapist noted anxiety and attachment to current placement and said losing contact with K.C. would be detrimental.
- The circuit court rejected placing the children with the grandparents, citing the grandparents’ purported absence from prior hearings, distance from K.C., and the children’s stability in their current placement; the Court of Appeals found the court’s factual findings clearly erroneous and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Clark) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest given available relative placement | Termination forecloses preserving family ties; grandparents were willing and approved and would keep children with family | Clark procedurally waived the argument by not appealing the permanency-planning order; termination doesn’t bar later grandparent adoption or contact | Court of Appeals: termination decision was clearly erroneous because the court misapplied facts and ignored the statutory preference for relative placement |
| Whether the circuit court properly considered the completed ICPC home study for grandparents | Grandparents had an approved home study and sought custody; court should prefer relative placement when in children’s best interest | DHS noted prior-case facts and distance concerns; argued adoption doesn’t necessarily preclude later grandparent involvement | Held: circuit court erred by blaming grandparents for nonattendance and by failing to give lawful weight to the approved relative home study |
| Whether DHS met notification and relative-locating duties | Implicitly: DHS did not adequately notify or include grandparents despite their efforts | DHS’s written report recommended termination but supervisor testified recommending placement with grandparents; DHS argued later adoption could allow grandparent petitions | Held: record showed grandparents tried to engage and DHS failed adequately to communicate; court’s contrary factual findings were clearly erroneous |
| Whether severing legal ties via adoption can be remedied later by grandparent adoption or contact | Clark: adoption severs legal family ties and will likely prevent meaningful grandparent custody/contact later | DHS: grandparents could still seek to adopt later or receive preferential consideration in adoption | Held: adoption severs legal ties; waiting until post-termination will likely preclude grandparents’ ability to obtain custody; DHS’s view insufficient to justify ignoring relative preference |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (recognition of parents’ liberty interest and heightened proof in termination cases)
- Ullom v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 340 Ark. 615 (standard of review in termination appeals)
- Wade v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 337 Ark. 353 (definition of clearly erroneous review standard)
- Suster v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 314 Ark. 92 (effect of parental-rights termination on relatives’ derivative rights)
- Ellis v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2016 Ark. 441 (statutory preference for relative placement applies throughout dependency-neglect proceedings)