Connors v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 579
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- K.T., a child of Derrick Connors and a mother who admitted prenatal PCP use, was removed after the mother and a half-sibling tested positive for illegal drugs at birth; Connors was incarcerated throughout the proceedings.
- DHS adjudicated the juveniles dependent-neglected and pursued reunification and permanency planning; earlier termination efforts were partially denied as to Connors for lack of evidence about services in prison and sentence length.
- After a second termination petition and hearing, the Pulaski County Circuit Court terminated Connors’s parental rights to K.T.; Connors appealed only the court’s best-interest finding.
- Connors argued the best-interest finding was erroneous because (1) DHS failed to prove K.T. was adoptable (caseworker’s computer match did not account for alleged sexual aggression) and (2) the court did not consider placement with a relative (Connors’s sister) as an available alternative.
- DHS presented evidence that the caseworker ran targeted adoptability matches (age, race, sibling status), explained why sexual-aggression was not included, and introduced two professional evaluations finding K.T. was not sexually aggressive.
- Connors’s sister emerged as a potential placement after the children had been in DHS custody for ~20 months and had not completed a home study or background checks by the termination hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Connors) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in finding termination was in the child’s best interest because DHS failed to show adoptability | The adoptability evidence (database match) ignored K.T.’s alleged sexual aggression and so was insufficient | Adoptability is a factor, not an element; DHS ran targeted searches (age, race, sibling status) and evaluations showed K.T. was not sexually aggressive | Court upheld best-interest finding; adoptability need not be proved with precision and evidence supported the finding |
| Whether the court failed to consider relative placement as an alternative to termination | Connors’s sister was willing to care for K.T. and the court terminated rights before DHS completed placement vetting | The sister only came forward after ~20 months, had not completed required home study/background checks by hearing; no evidence of an existing bond or permanency with the relative | Court found placement was not an immediately available alternative and no reversible error in best-interest ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- J.T. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (discussing standard of review and clear-and-convincing proof in TPR cases)
- Camarillo-Cox v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 360 Ark. 340, 201 S.W.3d 391 (deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Meriweather v. Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services, 98 Ark. App. 328, 255 S.W.3d 505 (parental-rights termination is extreme but permissible to protect child's welfare)
- Grant v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 378 S.W.3d 227 (reversing where adoptability finding ignored child’s autism; adoptability evidence cannot be conclusory)
- Brown v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2017 Ark. App. 497 (distinguishing Caldwell where no showing of permanency or meaningful relative bond existed)