Denen v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 473
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- DHS filed for emergency custody (Aug 2016) after reports and CAC examinations showed M.F. and R.R. had signs of physical abuse, neglect, and unsanitary conditions; M.F. reported being tied, beaten, called "idiot," and showed extensive bruising.
- Police and DHS investigation: Reed (putative father) admitted zip-tying M.F.; Denen acknowledged knowledge of abuse and failed to stop it; DHS placed children in emergency custody and suspended Denen’s visits with other children.
- Adjudication (Sept 2016): Court found by clear and convincing evidence that both children were dependent-neglected due to physical abuse and neglect, and that M.F. suffered aggravated circumstances (chronic abuse/extreme cruelty); goal set for adoption; adjudication was not appealed.
- Termination petition: DHS sought to terminate Denen’s parental rights; at the termination hearing DHS presented caseworker, CAC counselor (testified M.F. has PTSD and disclosed maternal abuse), investigator, and adoption specialist supporting termination and adoptability.
- Denen testified she was willing to comply with the case plan, asserted limited contact due to incarceration and no-contact order, and had completed some services in prison; she faced criminal charges related to the children’s removal.
- Trial court (Jan 2017) terminated Denen’s parental rights, finding termination in the children’s best interest and establishing three statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence; appeal counsel filed a no-merit brief and Denen declined to file pro se points.
Issues
| Issue | Denen's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for termination | Termination is not supported; Denen urged willingness to comply and progress in prison | Clear-and-convincing evidence of abuse/neglect, risk of future harm, and adoptability justify termination | Court affirmed: evidence sufficient; termination not clearly erroneous |
| Challenge to adjudication findings | Denen did not appeal adjudication | DHS relied on unappealed adjudication findings (abuse, neglect, aggravated circumstances) to support termination | Court held adjudication findings preclude relitigation; grounds for termination stand |
| Best interest of the children | Denen argued services/compliance show potential for reunification | DHS presented testimony (caseworker and therapist) that children would be at risk if returned; children are adoptable | Court found termination was in children's best interest |
| Trial-court evidentiary rulings and objections | Denen challenged certain evidentiary rulings and objections as reversible error | DHS and court asserted objections (argumentative, asked/answered, relevance) were proper; certified records admissible | Court held the rulings did not amount to reversible error; no meritorious issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131 (Ark. 2004) (procedure and counsel-withdrawal standards in dependency appeals)
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207 (Ark. 2001) (standard of de novo review in termination cases)
- Mitchell v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 430 S.W.3d 851 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013) (requirement that statutory ground and best interest be proved by clear and convincing evidence)
- Brown v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 521 S.W.3d 183 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (definition and appellate review standard for clear and convincing evidence)
- Draper v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 389 S.W.3d 58 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (only one statutory ground is necessary to support termination)
- Holloway v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 468 S.W.3d 805 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (failure to appeal adjudication precludes challenging those findings in a termination appeal)