Dawson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2011 Ark. App. 106
Ark. Ct. App.2011Background
- Dawson appeals termination of parental rights to E.J. (born 2003), P.J. (born 2004), and C.J. (born 2006); counsel filed a no-merit brief and Dawson filed pro se points.
- Appellate review is de novo; termination is an extreme remedy requiring clear and convincing evidence of both grounds and the child’s best interests.
- The trial court terminated on two grounds: (B)(3)(B)(i)(a) (dependent-neglected for twelve months out of custody with unremedied conditions) and (B)(3)(B)(vii)(a) (subsequent factors showing return would be harmful).
- The court found a strong likelihood of adoption based on testimony from an adoption specialist (over ten families would adopt similar sibling groups).
- Evidence showed potential harm if returned to Dawson due to ongoing sobriety issues, lack of stable housing and employment, and failure to comply with court orders and treatment plans; Dawson admitted relapses and other noncompliance.
- Dawson’s termination was affirmed; counsel’s motion to withdraw was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence on the best interests and grounds. | Dawson seeks reversal citing improvements and flaws in the proceedings. | DHS contends evidence supports best interests and at least one statutory ground for termination. | Yes; findings supported termination on best interests and grounds by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether the trial court properly found the two statutory grounds for termination. | Dawson argues grounds were not proven or properly supported in the record. | Dawson's conduct and conditions fit the statutory grounds for termination under (B)(3)(B)(i)(a) and (B)(3)(B)(vii)(a). | Yes; the grounds found were supported by the record. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 947 S.W.2d 761 (Ark. 1997) (clear-and-convincing standard and review framework for termination)
- Meriweather v. Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 255 S.W.3d 505 (Ark. App. 2007) (extreme remedy—parental rights not to be enforced to detriment of child)
- Gossett v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 374 S.W.3d 205 (Ark. App. 2010) (one ground suffices to terminate parental rights; substantial evidence standard)
- Ivy v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 234 (Ark. App. 2010) (evidentiary abuse-of-discretion review)
- Linker-Flores v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (Ark. 2004) (standard and procedures for termination cases in Arkansas)