Cox v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
462 S.W.3d 670
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- ADHS removed K.C. and Z.C. after appellant James Cox provided alcohol to and fondled D.B., a 14‑year‑old for whom he stood in loco parentis; D.B. was hospitalized with a .29 BAC.
- Circuit court adjudicated the children dependent-neglected, found aggravated circumstances as to D.B., and applied those findings to K.C. and Z.C.; supervised visitation for Cox was initially allowed then rescinded.
- ADHS filed to terminate Cox’s parental rights while maintaining reunification with the children’s mother, Amanda Weston.
- At the TPR hearing, the children’s counselor (David Todd) expressed concern that Cox’s conduct predicted future risk to the children; Cox’s therapist (Lee Lowder) testified Cox was not a predator and did not pose a threat.
- The court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that termination was in the children’s best interest based on Cox’s lack of judgment/insight, alcohol issues, domestic violence, and the potential for sexual/physical harm to the children; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TPR can be entered as to one parent while the other remains custodial when the permanency plan is return to that parent | Cox: Bifurcated TPR (one parent only) is improper where permanency goal is return to the other parent; termination unnecessary because adoption not required for permanency | ADHS: Statute permits termination of one parent when supported by best‑interest and statutory grounds | Court: Permissible—statute allows termination of one parent when best interest and statutory requirements are met |
| Whether TPR was in the children’s best interest under Ark. Code § 9-27-341(b)(3)(A) | Cox: Not in children’s best interest; he posed no credible threat and reunification with mother provided stability | ADHS: Continued contact posed forward‑looking potential harm (sexual/physical/alcohol/domestic violence) that outweighed contrary testimony | Court: Affirmed—clear and convincing evidence of potential harm; best‑interest finding not clearly erroneous |
| Weight/credibility of mental‑health testimony (Todd vs. Lowder) | Cox: Court should have given greater weight to Lowder (his therapist) who said Cox was not a predator | ADHS: Todd, who counseled the children, credibly warned of high risk of repetition and harm | Court: Credibility determinations are for the factfinder; the court reasonably credited Todd and other evidence |
| Whether statutory grounds were established to support TPR | Cox: Did not contest statutory grounds on appeal (argued best‑interest only) | ADHS: Adjudication and aggravated‑circumstances findings supplied grounds for TPR | Court: Statutory grounds were established (adjudication findings carry over); appellant waived challenge to those findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Hathcock v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 347 Ark. 819 (court on public interest in permanency for abused/neglected children)
- Hall v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 101 Ark. App. 417 (parental‑rights termination where one parent’s rights terminated and permanency/planning considerations)
- Caldwell v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 102 (reversal where TPR was clearly erroneous because permanency plan was return to the custodial parent)
- Dowdy v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 180 (past behavior as predictor of future harm; forward‑looking potential‑harm analysis)
- Trout v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 283 (deference to circuit court findings in best‑interest determinations)