Cranford v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2011 Ark. App. 211
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appeals from an August 31, 2010 order terminating both Tiffany and Christopher Cranford’s parental rights to their son S.C. born June 4, 2005.
- DHS took emergency custody on May 20, 2009 after a truck accident in which both parents were intoxicated; S.C. has remained in DHS custody since then.
- S.C. was adjudicated dependent/neglected on September 17, 2009 with reunification as the case goal.
- Trial court orders required parenting classes, evaluations, treatment, visitation, stable housing and employment, and resolution of criminal charges for both parents.
- Permanency planning on July 19, 2010 shifted the goal to termination and adoption, with a guardianship as a concurrent goal.
- The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, two statutory grounds under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B), and termination was deemed in S.C.’s best interest; on appeal the court reversed finding best interest and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was termination in S.C.’s best interest? | Cranfords contend best interest supported by stability concerns. | DHS argued termination necessary to ensure permanence and safety. | No; termination not in best interest; inherently reversible error. |
| Were statutory grounds for termination proven by clear and convincing evidence? | Cranfords argue grounds not proven given best-interest error. | DHS maintained grounds were met. | Question not reached; court remanded for best-interest determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bearden v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 317 (2001) (presence of uncertainty can be harmful to child; termination not automatic fix)
- Ivers v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 98 Ark.App. 57 (2007) (custody by nonrelatives with desire for ongoing parental contact favors continued involvement)
- Grant v. Arkansas Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 636 (2010) (termination is extreme remedy; heavy burden on movant)
- Meriweather v. Arkansas Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 98 Ark.App. 328 (2007) (reversal standard; clear error when best interest is misassessed)