Dade v. Arkansas Department of Human Services & Minor Child
2016 Ark. App. 443
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- Mia Dade (mother) has a diagnosed delusional disorder and paranoid personality disorder; her son R.M. (b. 2013) was taken into DHS custody in January 2015 after prior removal history.
- DHS filed to terminate parental rights in September 2015; the Union County Circuit Court granted termination in February 2016.
- DHS provided reunification services (visitation, counseling, medication management, psychological evaluation, home visits); Dade often refused services, stopped counseling, declined medication, and denied mental-health symptoms.
- Multiple incidents and records showed erratic behavior: involuntary psychiatric commitments (Jan. and June 2015), an episode in public (street incident), an arrest for aggravated assault (Sept. 2015), and hospital notes describing disorganized conduct.
- Trial court found clear-and-convincing evidence of the statutory aggravated-circumstances ground (little likelihood services will result in reunification) and that termination was in the child’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved an aggravated-circumstances ground (little likelihood services will reunify) by clear and convincing evidence | Dade: prior successful reunification after inpatient treatment shows services can work; DHS failed to provide intensive mental-health services and did not accommodate under the ADA | DHS: presented evidence of repeated unstable behavior, refusals of treatment, hospitalizations, and incidents showing Dade lacks insight and will not benefit from services | Held: Affirmed — clear-and-convincing evidence supports aggravated-circumstances finding; little likelihood services will achieve reunification |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interest | Dade: implied challenge tied to alleged inadequate services | DHS: child’s welfare and history of repeated custody episodes support best-interest finding | Held: Not challenged on appeal; trial-court best-interest finding stands |
| Whether Dade’s waiver of counsel at a prior probable-cause hearing was knowing and intelligent under Bearden | Dade: waiver was not knowingly and intelligently made; reversal required | DHS: waiver issue not preserved; Dade later had counsel at termination hearing | Held: Not preserved — counsel was appointed at termination hearing and waiver argument was not raised below |
| Whether ADA accommodations should have been considered | Dade: absence of ADA accommodations shows speculative termination | DHS: ADA issue was not raised or ruled on below | Held: Not preserved for appellate review |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (de novo review of termination-of-parental-rights cases)
- Anderson v. Douglas, 310 Ark. 633, 839 S.W.2d 196 (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
- Ullom v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 340 Ark. 615, 12 S.W.3d 204 (standard for reversing termination decisions)
- Wade v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 337 Ark. 353, 990 S.W.2d 509 (clearly erroneous standard explained)
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (trial-court credibility determinations entitled to deference)
- Bearden v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 317, 42 S.W.3d 397 (waiver-of-counsel must be knowing and intelligent)