Cole v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services
2012 Ark. App. 203
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- DHS became involved in July 2010 after allegations of severe physical abuse to JE, a 22-month-old at the time.
- JE’s babysitter observed severe bruising; Cole initially blamed her boyfriend, Otis Wayne Lynch, for the injuries.
- DHS obtained emergency custody on July 29, 2010; Lynch admitted beating JE and was arrested; Cole faced related charges.
- Sept. 29, 2010, JE was adjudicated dependent-neglected based on abuse and Cole’s parental unfitness; court found Cole failed to accept responsibility.
- Jan. 26, 2011, JE was placed with maternal great-grandmother Velda Tyson; Cole partially complied with the case plan but lacked proof of employment and counseling and had pending charges.
- May 25, 2011 permanency planning shifted to adoption; court found potential danger if JE remained with Cole and noted lack of meaningful progress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to terminate | Cole argues more time was needed to progress under the plan. | DHS contends clear and convincing evidence shows failure to remedy and harm risk. | Evidence supports termination. |
| Best interests of JE | Cole claims termination not in JE’s best interest due to stable relative care. | DHS contends JE is adoptable and risk of harm from return to Cole exists. | Termination in JE’s best interest. |
| Adequacy of case plan progress | Cole asserts meaningful progress and need for more time. | DHS argues continued failure to comply and recognize the abuse undermines progress. | No reversible error; insufficient progress to warrant extension. |
| Cole's acknowledgment of abuse | Cole fails to accept responsibility for the abuse and protects the boyfriend’s role. | DHS highlights ongoing lack of accountability and protection for JE. | Lack of acknowledgment supports termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 102 Ark.App. 337 (Ark. App. 2008) (clear and convincing standard and de novo review in termination cases)
- Wright v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 83 Ark.App. 1 (Ark. App. 2003) (completion of case plan not determinative; root cause matters)
- Bearden v. Ark Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 317 (Ark. 2001) (harm analysis in best-interest determinations)
- In re Adoption of K.M.C., 62 Ark.App. 95 (Ark. App. 1998) (broad harm considerations in best-interest analysis)