Clary v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2014 Ark. App. 338
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- DHS removed J.R. and B.C. in Sept. 2013 after a Head Start incident and threats to harm herself and the children.
- Ex parte emergency order found a threat of harm based on the mother’s mental instability.
- At adjudication, court found Clary threatened a school employee and to kill herself and her children.
- The trial court adjudicated the children dependent-neglected; Clary appealed.
- Evidence included Clary’s depression, anxiety, and a history of emotional instability since her mother’s death.
- Clary argued hearsay and closing remarks outside the record; the court addressed sufficiency of evidence preponderance standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports dependency-neglect | Clary argues insufficient evidence | DHS argues evidence shows threats and instability | Evidence supports dependency-neglect under preponderance |
| Admission of police officer testimony about threats | Testimony was hearsay | Even if hearsay, not reversible error | Harmless error; sufficient remaining evidence |
| Ad litem closing remarks outside the record preserved for review | Remarks outside record | No contemporaneous objection preserved on appeal | Issue not preserved; not reviewed on merits |
| Credibility resolution of witnesses affecting outcome | Court credited Head Start staff over Clary | Trial court credibility decisions control factual findings | No reversible error; findings supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Churchill v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 530 (Ark. App. 2012) (de novo review standard for dependency-neglect sufficiency)
- Hopkins v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 79 Ark. App. 1 (Ark. App. 2002) (admissibility of evidence; harmless error rule)
- Dodson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 345 Ark. 430 (2001) (harmless-error principle; prejudice required for reversal)
- Lamontagne v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2010 Ark. 190 (Ark. 2010) (contemporaneous objection required to preserve issues; de novo review)
- Roberts v. Yang, 2010 Ark. 55 (Ark. 2010) (principle that opportunities to raise issues must be seized during below proceedings)