Contreras v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2015 Ark. App. 604
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- DHS petitioned for emergency custody and dependency-neglect of A.C. and C.R.; matter involved Porfirio Contreras as A.C.'s father.
- A.C. and C.R. were adjudicated dependent-neglected by stipulation in January 2014; DHS offered reunification services throughout.
- Trial court repeatedly found DHS had made reasonable efforts; by January 2015 goal shifted to termination and adoption.
- Contreras had pending criminal charges (sexual abuse of a minor, Pope County) and a prior drug conviction with probation; housing and finances were unstable.
- Contreras testified to work as a plumber, limited housing, intermittent visitation, and ongoing legal troubles impacting placement suitability.
- Trial court terminated Contreras’s parental rights, citing subsequent charges, unstable housing, and insufficient likelihood of reunification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reunification services were adequate | Contreras contends DHS failed to provide meaningful reunification services. | Contreras argues services were insufficient; he had no chance to challenge old findings due to non-final orders. | Issue waived; evidence supports termination regardless of reunification-service adequacy. |
| Whether grounds under §9-27-341(b)(3)(B) were proven | DHS relies on subsequent factors and aggravated circumstances to justify termination. | Contreras contends ground findings were not proven or applicable due to pending charges. | Sufficient evidence supports §9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii) termination ground; aggravated-circumstances unnecessary to address. |
| Whether termination is in the best interests of the child | Best interests supported by need for permanency and safety due to Contreras’s instability. | Contreras asserts bond with child and potential for placement should be considered. | Termination affirmed because permanency and welfare require stability despite bonds. |
| Whether the no-reunification-services/Rule 54(b) issue affects review | DHS’s findings should stand; Rule 54(b) did not preclude review. | Contreras argued finality or procedural issue prevented review of services. | No reversal; issues waived or unavailing; review of services not orderably reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gossett v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 240 (Ark. App. 2010) (one or more grounds suffice for termination if proven clearly and convincingly)
- Fenstermacher v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 426 S.W.3d 483 (Ark. App. 2013) (de novo review of termination; clear-and-convincing standard)
- Henson v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Services, 434 S.W.3d 371 (Ark. App. 2014) (no-reunification-services order not necessarily appealable; but issues may be challenged)
- Weathers v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 433 S.W.3d 271 (Ark. App. 2014) (failure to object may waive services-related issues on appeal)
- Fredrick v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 377 S.W.3d 306 (Ark. App. 2010) (child's need for permanency may override parent’s request for more time)
- Hamman v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 435 S.W.3d 495 (Ark. App. 2014) (fee of review when one ground suffices for termination)
- Jones-Lee v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 316 S.W.3d 261 (Ark. App. 2009) (appealability and review standards in dependency-neglect cases)
- Stockstill v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 439 S.W.3d 95 (Ark. App. 2014) (consideration of DHS’s reasonable efforts and parent objections on appeal)