Davis v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2017 Ark. App. 275
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- DHS removed two children (A.B., born 2011; D.B., born 2015) after positive parental drug tests and newborn withdrawal; children were placed in foster care in June 2015.
- Parents Stephany Davis and Daniel Brown stipulated to dependency-neglect based on parental drug use; services and case plans were provided but parents had sporadic compliance.
- Over ~15 months, parents missed or failed drug tests, had inconsistent participation in treatment, and last visited the children in August 2015.
- DHS filed to terminate parental rights in July 2016; the trial court found three statutory grounds proved (twelve-month/failure to remedy; subsequent factors; aggravated circumstances), concluded ICWA did not apply, and found termination was in the children’s best interests.
- Both parents appealed; their counsel filed Linker-Flores no-merit briefs and motions to withdraw. The Court of Appeals affirmed and granted counsel’s motions to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination were proved (including "aggravated circumstances") | Stephany/Daniel argued evidence did not support termination | DHS argued prolonged noncompliance, positive drug tests, failed treatments, and lack of stability established grounds | Court: Affirmed; at least one ground (aggravated circumstances) was supported by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests | Parents asked for more time; argued reunification could be possible | DHS showed children adoptable and return would likely cause harm given parents’ instability | Court: Affirmed; best-interest finding supported by record |
| Applicability of Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) | Daniel contended ICWA applied via Cherokee Nation application | DHS argued no proof children were members or eligible; Daniel’s late form did not establish eligibility or paternity | Court: ICWA did not apply; parents failed to prove tribal membership/eligibility |
| Validity of no-merit procedure / counsel withdrawal and preserved issues (e.g., reasonable efforts, representation, relative placement) | Parents’ counsel invoked no-merit (Linker-Flores) and sought withdrawal; parents filed no pro se points | DHS and trial court record showed reasonable efforts later, counsel at termination hearing, relative placement considered but rejected; many complaints were unpreserved | Court: Granted motions to withdraw; no-merit briefs adequate; unpreserved claims provide no basis for reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131 (2004) (procedure for no-merit petitions and counsel withdrawal in dependency cases)
- Poss v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 443 S.W.3d 594 (Ark. App. 2014) (requirements for no-merit petition content and preservation)
- Ford v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2017 Ark. App. 211 (standard of review for parental-termination appeals; need one statutory ground plus best-interest showing)