Cotton v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Services
2012 Ark. App. 455
Ark. Ct. App.2012Background
- DHS took emergency custody of B.C. and M.C. due to concerns of inadequate supervision and drug issues, with appellant initially believed to be father.
- Paternity of B.C. was established for appellant on August 20, 2010, after which DHS offered him weekly visitation.
- The circuit court adjudicated the children as dependent-neglected and kept reunification as the goal, with DHS to provide services.
- Appellant repeatedly failed to maintain stable housing and employment, missed multiple drug tests, and only engaged in treatment after arrest and rehab enrollment in 2011.
- DHS moved for termination of parental rights, alleging grounds under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341 and appointing a plan for adoption; the court found adoption likely and that termination was in the children's best interests.
- The TPR petition was granted as to B.C. on January 3, 2012; appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief and motion to withdraw, with appellant filing pro se points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the pro se portion of the appeal meritorious? | Cotton asserts errors despite lack of argument and authority. | Court conducts full review despite pro se points due to no-merit briefing. | No meritorious grounds; affirmed. |
| Whether the denial of the continuance was an abuse of discretion | Counsel requested more time for defense and preparation. | Counsel failed to show prejudice or diligence; denial was proper. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Admission of the DHS court report at the TPR hearing | Hearsay concerns; report improperly admitted. | Testimony mirrored report; prejudice not shown. | No reversible error; admission not prejudicial. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support termination of parental rights | Insufficient evidence for grounds or adoptability. | Evidence showed noncompliance and harm; grounds satisfied. | Sufficient evidence under substantial grounds, including subsequent factors; TPR affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (1997) (standard for review in TPR cases; clear and convincing evidence required)
- Blanchard v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 215, 395 S.W.3d 405 (Ark. App. 2012) (relevance to permanency and standards on TPR findings)
- Hall v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 245, 413 S.W.3d 542 (Ark. App. 2012) (standards for termination and best interests in adoption context)
- Causer v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 93 Ark.App. 483, 220 S.W.3d 270 (2005) (applicability of statutory grounds in TPR petitions)
- Williams v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 99 Ark.App. 95, 257 S.W.3d 574 (2007) (adoptability and harm considerations in TPR analysis)