Cole v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Children
543 S.W.3d 540
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- DHS took four older children into emergency custody in Jan 2016 after reports that J.C. (a child with significant medical needs) missed therapies and school; Cole tested positive for THC and the home was unsanitary and lacked J.C.’s medical equipment. Cole stipulated the children were dependent-neglected.
- J.P. was born May 18, 2016; mother and infant tested positive for amphetamines; J.P. had medical issues at birth; DHS took custody and J.P. was adjudicated dependent-neglected. Cole stipulated to the adjudication.
- DHS pursued reunification initially but changed the permanency goal to termination; DHS filed a petition to terminate parental rights in May 2017. The circuit court terminated Cole’s parental rights on three statutory bases including twelve months out of custody/failure to remedy and aggravated circumstances.
- At the termination hearing, DHS presented adoption-specialist testimony (Anissa Ballew) indicating data matches: ~25 matches for the sibling group and over 200 matches for J.P.; Ballew testified that, besides J.P., the children had no severe medical/behavioral barriers to adoption.
- Cole challenged only the best-interest/adoptability finding on appeal, arguing the adoption testimony was unreliable because the worker was unfamiliar with J.C.’s serious needs; she also argued DHS failed to make meaningful efforts to place three children with their father (Miranda), and she lacked standing to raise Miranda’s placement claim.
- The circuit court expressly considered adoptability and the likelihood of harm from return; the court relied on Ballew’s testimony and other record evidence of the children’s needs and DHS’s involvement. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cole) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was not in children’s best interest because DHS failed to prove likelihood of adoption | Ballew’s data-match testimony was unreliable and inconsistent; she was unfamiliar with J.C.’s extensive needs, so adoptability was not proven | Adoptability need only be considered (not proven by clear and convincing evidence); caseworker/adoption-specialist testimony that children are adoptable suffices and the court properly considered that evidence | Affirmed: court properly considered adoptability; reliance on Ballew’s testimony was not clearly erroneous |
| Whether Cole can challenge alleged failure to place children with father (Miranda) | Termination was not in best interest because DHS did not meaningfully attempt to place S.M., L.M., B.P. with Miranda who wanted custody | Cole lacks standing to assert alleged violations of Miranda’s parental rights; placement efforts toward a third party are not Cole’s challenge | Affirmed: Cole lacks standing to raise Miranda’s placement claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallace v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 524 S.W.3d 439 (Ark. Ct. App.) (standard of appellate review and clear-error in termination cases)
- Holloway v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 520 S.W.3d 724 (Ark. Ct. App.) (a caseworker’s testimony that a child is adoptable can support adoptability finding)
- Canada v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 528 S.W.3d 874 (Ark. Ct. App.) (court must consider likelihood of adoption but adoptability is not required to be proved by clear and convincing evidence)
- Solee v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 535 S.W.3d 687 (Ark. Ct. App.) (holding adoptability requirement should not unfairly disadvantage special-needs children and proof need not be a specific quantum)
- Murphey v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 502 S.W.3d 544 (Ark. Ct. App.) (parent lacks standing to challenge alleged violations of another parent’s rights)