Clint Kloss v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children
585 S.W.3d 725
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- In May 2017 police executed a search warrant where methamphetamine, hydrocodone, marijuana, paraphernalia, and stolen property were found within reach of the two children; both parents were arrested and the children were removed for safety and environmental neglect.
- In July 2017 the circuit court adjudicated the children dependent-neglected and found aggravated circumstances as to the parents; at that time Kloss had not yet been adjudicated the children’s father.
- Kloss was later adjudicated the father and obtained parental status at the permanency-planning hearing (March 27, 2018); DHS filed to terminate parental rights in May 2018, alleging failure to remedy, subsequent factors, and aggravated circumstances.
- Evidence at the termination hearing showed Kloss had longstanding, unresolved substance-abuse issues (positive drug tests, overdose, incomplete treatment), unstable housing/employment, pending criminal matters, and limited engagement in recommended services.
- The trial court terminated Kloss’s parental rights, finding clear and convincing evidence of statutory grounds (including aggravated circumstances/little likelihood of reunification) and that termination was in the children’s best interest; the court denied Kloss’s request for additional time.
- On appeal counsel filed a no-merit brief under Linker-Flores and moved to withdraw; Kloss filed pro se points. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record de novo, found no meritorious issues, affirmed the termination, and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds supported termination | Kloss argued insufficient evidence to terminate his rights | DHS argued aggravated circumstances and other statutory grounds supported termination | Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence of aggravated circumstances (little likelihood of reunification) |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest | Kloss argued termination was not necessary / premature | DHS relied on adoptability evidence and potential harm if returned to Kloss | Court: Affirmed — adoptability and forward-looking potential-harm findings supported termination |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying more time for reunification | Kloss requested additional time to complete services and stabilize | DHS argued children’s need for permanency outweighed delays given Kloss’s limited progress | Court: Affirmed — denial not reversible; children’s need for stability prevailed |
| Procedural complaints raised pro se (late counsel, delayed services due to paternity) | Kloss claimed ineffective timing of counsel and delayed services harmed his case | DHS noted these issues were not raised below and thus not preserved | Court: Affirmed — these arguments were not preserved or lacked merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004) (standards and procedures for appellate no-merit briefing and counsel withdrawal)
- Harjo v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 268, 548 S.W.3d 865 (appellate standard of review in termination cases; deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Ewasiuk v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 59, 540 S.W.3d 318 (weight of trial-court credibility determinations in termination appeals)
- Ladd v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2017 Ark. App. 419, 526 S.W.3d 883 (parent’s continued substance abuse despite services can support termination)
- Schaffer v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. App. 208, 489 S.W.3d 182 (persistent drug use and failure to show ability to safely parent support termination)
- Myers v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. 182, 380 S.W.3d 906 (best-interest inquiry requires adoptability and potential-harm considerations)
- Welch v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 798, 378 S.W.3d 290 (trial court need not identify specific actual harm; potential harm suffices)
- Whitaker v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 61, 540 S.W.3d 719 (adoption-specialist testimony can support adoptability finding)
- Rylie v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 366, 554 S.W.3d 275 (child’s need for permanency may outweigh parent's request for more time)
- Williams v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2019 Ark. App. 280, 577 S.W.3d 402 (arguments raised for first time on appeal are not considered)