Courtney Holmes v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2016 Ark. App. 495
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- DHS filed emergency custody petition January 2015 after Holmes was arrested for DWI with her children in the car and admitted methamphetamine use; police also found a hypodermic syringe in the children’s possession. An ongoing investigation alleged sexual abuse of one child by her father, John.
- Court entered ex parte emergency-custody order; children adjudicated dependent-neglected in March 2015; DHS provided substance-abuse referrals, counseling, parenting classes, visitation, and other services.
- Holmes repeatedly entered and left drug-treatment programs (Decision Point and others); DHS made multiple referrals and re-referrals for treatment across 2015–2016; Holmes had intervening medical issues and inconsistent participation in counseling and visitation.
- The Cherokee Nation was notified and an expert from the Tribe (Nicole Allison) testified that DHS had made active efforts and that continued custody by Holmes was likely to cause serious emotional or physical damage to the children.
- Trial court terminated Holmes’s parental rights, finding statutory grounds under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341 and that ICWA requirements (active efforts and expert testimony showing likely serious damage) were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Holmes appealed only on ICWA sufficiency grounds (active efforts and the higher beyond-a-reasonable-doubt proof of likely serious damage), arguing DHS’s efforts were inadequate and her health issues excused noncompletion of treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Holmes's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS made the ICWA-required "active efforts" to prevent breakup of the Indian family | Holmes: DHS offered only ordinary/menial services; delays and failures to secure treatment were DHS shortcomings; medical issues limited her ability to complete programs | DHS: multiple referrals/re-referrals, counseling orders, and other services constituted active efforts; expert Cherokee witness confirmed efforts | Court: Active efforts proven beyond a reasonable doubt; trial court not clearly erroneous |
| Whether "continued custody" by Holmes was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage (ICWA §1912(f)) | Holmes: recurring medical issues impeded treatment; no sufficient proof that returning children would cause serious harm; sexual-abuse finding against father was only an allegation | DHS: expert testimony that Holmes’s unresolved substance abuse, failure to complete counseling, and risk from father’s true finding made continued custody likely to cause serious harm | Court: Expert testimony supported finding beyond a reasonable doubt; trial court not clearly erroneous |
| Proper standard of appellate review when ICWA imposes beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden | Holmes: urged criminal-like substantial-evidence review | DHS: civil bench-trial review applies; appellate review is de novo but factual findings are reversed only if clearly erroneous | Court: Although burden at trial is beyond a reasonable doubt, appellate review asks whether trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous (de novo review subject to clearly-erroneous standard) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 429 S.W.3d 276 (Ark. App. 2013) (standard for de novo review and reversal only if findings are clearly erroneous)
- Thornton v. State, 433 S.W.3d 216 (Ark. 2014) (discussion of standards of appellate review not being equated to criminal substantial-evidence standard)
- Timmons v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 376 S.W.3d 466 (Ark. App. 2010) (recommended practice for separating findings under state law and ICWA burdens)
- Ark. Teacher Retirement Sys. v. Short, 381 S.W.3d 834 (Ark. 2011) (civil findings requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt are reviewed for clear error)
- Merriman v. Yutterman, 723 S.W.2d 823 (Ark. 1987) (civil matters requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt reviewed for clear error)
- Robinson v. Estate of Robinson, 485 S.W.3d 261 (Ark. App. 2016) (clarifies appellate inquiry when trial court applies a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden in civil context)
Affirmed.