Clingenpeel v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 381 S.W.3d 107

Selena Clingenpeel appeals the termination of her parental rights to J.C. (born 2008) and A.R. (born 2005).
DHS sought emergency custody on January 6, 2009 following an altercation involving appellant and her boyfriend; investigations indicated drug use by appellant and co-occupants; appellant tested positive for methamphetamine.
The circuit court granted emergency custody, ordered random drug screens, treatment and services, and later adjudicated the children dependent-neglected with a goal of reunification.
Permanency planning on December 9, 2009 shifted the goal from reunification to termination, citing ongoing substance abuse, housing instability, unemployment, and multiple legal issues by appellant.
DHS filed a petition to terminate parental rights on February 5, 2010, alleging noncompliance, ongoing substance abuse, lack of housing and employment, and incomplete treatment.
At the June 23, 2010 termination hearing, the court found appellant regressed, remained substance-abuse dependent, was homeless, incarcerated, and had not completed services, leading to termination. The court later stated that there was a high likelihood of adoption and thus a best-interest finding in favor of termination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether adoptability is properly considered in the best-interest analysis	Clingenpeel argues adoptability evidence was insufficient or not credibly shown.	DHS contends the court need only consider adoptability, not prove it by clear and convincing evidence.	Yes; adoptability need only be considered, not proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Welch v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 798, 378 S.W.3d 290 (Ark. App. 2010) (two-step termination analysis; adoptability may be considered.)