Clark v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2016 Ark. App. 286
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Jessica Clark (mother) had three children removed in a dependency-neglect proceeding; B.W. is the child at issue. DHS named Charles Weeks as B.W.’s putative father; paternity was later adjudicated and Weeks became party to the juvenile action.
- After hearings in Dec. 2014 and Jan. 2015, the trial judge issued a January 29, 2015 letter opinion granting permanent custody of B.W. to Weeks and directed the AAL to prepare a formal order; no formal order was entered until August 19, 2015 (nunc pro tunc to Jan. 26, 2015).
- Clark filed a notice of appeal the same day the formal order was entered; DHS and the AAL moved to dismiss as untimely, arguing the letter opinion started the appeal clock.
- At the custody hearings the court relied on a material-change-of-circumstances standard (domestic-relations standard); Clark objected at trial only on notice and moved for directed verdict claiming lack of significant change.
- Evidence included Clark’s past substance abuse, mental-health treatment gaps, two isolated parenting incidents, and concerns from Weeks’ relatives about B.W.’s hygiene and development; Weeks’ stability (unstable housing, part-time jobs, no driver’s license, relative-provided childcare) received limited analysis in the trial court’s order.
- The trial court awarded permanent custody to Weeks; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, finding procedural and substantive shortcomings in the trial court’s best-interest analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal was timely (did letter opinion start the appeal period?) | Clark: appeal was timely from the formal order entered Aug. 19, 2015 | DHS/AAL: letter opinion (Jan. 29, 2015) was the order and started the 21-day clock | Court: letter opinion is not a final order; formal judgment entry controls; notice was timely, motion to dismiss denied |
| Whether juvenile-code transfer procedures/standard were required and were followed | Clark: juvenile-code transfer rules (including home study) govern and were not followed; court used domestic material-change standard erroneously | DHS/AAL/Trial: court applied material-change/best-interest analysis and Clark invited that standard at trial | Court: Clark invited/failed to preserve this objection, so cannot reverse on that ground |
| Whether evidence supports transfer of custody (best interest/significant change) | Clark: insufficient evidence that transfer was in B.W.’s best interest or that there was a material change | AAL/Weeks: evidence of Clark’s substance/parenting issues and Weeks’s fitness supported transfer | Court: evidence insufficiently addressed Weeks’s stability and the effect of separating B.W. from half-siblings; trial court erred in finding transfer was in B.W.’s best interest — reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Marlow v. United Sys. of Ark., Inc., 2013 Ark. 460 (limits appellate review to issues raised below)
- Lamontagne v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. 190 (cannot raise new issues on de novo review when opportunity existed below)
- Ingle v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2014 Ark. 53 (court must consider all relevant factors when determining best interest)
- Peeks v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 304 Ark. 172 (doctrine of invited error bars party from objecting to actions they induced)
- McCoy v. Kincade, 2015 Ark. 389 (material-change threshold applies in domestic-relations custody modifications)