Conway v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
453 S.W.3d 703
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- T.C., born Nov. 20, 2012, was placed in DHS custody days after birth because her mother was incarcerated and her father, Timothy Conway (appellant), was a registered sex offender with a significant criminal history and a positive drug test.
- DHS adjudicated T.C. dependent-neglected and repeatedly declined to place her with Conway because his sex-offender status, parole conditions, and stability concerns made him inappropriate.
- Conway continued to exhibit threatening behavior toward DHS staff during the case (including threats to blow up DHS), prompting suspension of visitation and concern about his mental-health and propensity for violence.
- While the case was pending, Conway was incarcerated for a parole violation and had no viable housing or employment plan on release; DHS changed the case goal to adoption and filed to terminate his parental rights.
- The circuit court terminated Conway’s parental rights (Mar. 21, 2014), citing subsequent factors (threats, incarceration, inability to remedy issues), and the court on appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Conway) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was supported by the “subsequent factors” ground (§ 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)) | Sex-offender status arose before the original petition, so it cannot be a “subsequent” factor; termination unsupported. | Subsequent factors did arise (threats to DHS, incarceration, failure to plan/rehabilitate) and made return contrary to child’s welfare. | Court: Held for DHS; threats and incarceration were subsequent factors and Conway failed to remedy them. |
| Whether Conway’s sex-offender status is relevant to the subsequent-factors finding | Irrelevant to this ground because it predated the original petition. | Sex-offender status is relevant to safety (prohibits unsupervised contact) and contextualizes subsequent threats and supervisory concerns. | Court: Sex-offender status was relevant contextually and reinforced safety concerns; also Conway’s relationship with child’s mother meant unsupervised risk. |
| Whether DHS offered appropriate family services (reasonable efforts) | DHS failed to show appropriate services were offered to Conway; termination improper. | Reasonable-efforts argument was not raised below; court should not consider it on appeal. | Court: Refused to consider the unpreserved argument; appellate review barred on that point. |
| Whether Conway’s incarceration/substantial sentence supported termination | Incarceration predated hearing but was not a substantial period relative to child’s life; termination unwarranted. | Nine-month sentence and lack of post-release plan constituted a substantial period and prevented timely reunification. | Court: Held for DHS; incarceration and lack of a viable plan made reunification impossible within a developmentally appropriate time. |
Key Cases Cited
- Friend v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 344 S.W.3d 670 (Ark. App. 2009) (incarceration and inability to provide a stable home can support termination)
- Cariker v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 385 S.W.3d 859 (Ark. App. 2011) (parental contact with parties who adversely affect family stability can support termination)
- Tadlock v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 372 S.W.3d 403 (Ark. App. 2009) (continued harmful relationships may justify termination)
- Tankersley v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 389 S.W.3d 96 (Ark. App. 2012) (only one statutory ground is necessary to affirm termination)