Contreras v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2014 Ark. 51
| Ark. | 2014Background
- DHS took emergency custody of J.G. on Feb 22, 2012; J.G. remained in Williams’s temporary custody for reunification efforts.
- Adjudication/disposition on Mar 29, 2012 declared J.G. dependent-neglected; plan required Contreras to comply with growing case obligations.
- Contreras faced show-cause/arrest on Apr 13–24, 2012 for noncompliance with the case plan and court orders.
- By Sept 5, 2012, the court noted some progress—housing planned in Texas, employment, counseling, and past drug screenings—but unresolved issues remained (drug assessment, probation, sibling custody).
- Permanency hearing on Jan 18, 2013 found Contreras in some compliance and progress but not enough trust; the court awarded permanent custody to Williams and closed the case, while granting Contreras extended supervised visitation.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, concluding there was insufficient evidence to justify permanent custody to Williams under 9-27-338(c) and that a plan under subsection (c)(2) might have been appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permanent custody to Williams was in J.G.’s best interest | Contreras argues insufficient evidence for best interest | Williams/State asserts best interest supported by stability and progress | Not clearly erroneous; reversal for remand on best-interest grounds |
| Whether 9-27-338(c) required returning J.G. to Contreras or allowed a plan with a three-month return | Contreras contends plan under 9-27-338(c)(2) was appropriate | Circuit court found 338(c) not in best interest to return home | Court erred in granting permanent custody; remand for consideration of 338(c)(2) plan |
| Preservation of error and standards of review in dependency-neglect appeals | Contreras argues error preserved despite arguments | State maintains standard de novo review with clear-error standard | Court reaffirmed de novo standard; reversed for further proceedings on best-interest and 338(c) grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamontagne v. Ark. Dep't. of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. 190 (Ark. 2010) (de novo standard; clear-error review; credibility favored to trial court)
- Porter v. Arkansas Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 374 Ark. 177 (Ark. 2008) (clear-error standard for dependency-neglect findings)
- Russell v. Russell, 2013 Ark. 372 (Ark. 2013) (treatment of petition-for-review as original filing; appellate posture)
- Oates v. Oates, 340 Ark. 431 (Ark. 2000) (non-challenge to sufficiency waived on appeal not applicable in civil nonjury trials)