Dominguez v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
592 S.W.3d 723
Ark. Ct. App.2020Background
- DHS removed CD (born Dec. 12, 2016) after mother Lisa Dominguez’s drug use and a 2018 car accident; Lisa previously lost rights to three other children in 2016.
- Dependency adjudication and multiple orders required Lisa to engage in services; reunification goal changed to adoption after Lisa failed to maintain stability or comply.
- Putative/possible fathers included Javier Dominguez (married to Lisa), Ronnie Corter, Francisco Saldana-Gallardo, and Brian Elliott; DNA testing excluded Javier as biological father but record shows Lisa and Javier were married when CD was born.
- DHS filed a termination petition against Lisa (and Brian Elliott); Javier was not named in the petition and was not served, though he was represented at hearings and sought placement.
- The circuit court found statutory grounds for termination proved, found CD adoptable and that return to Lisa posed potential harm, and terminated Lisa’s parental rights; the court also stated Javier had no parental rights.
- On appeal Lisa’s sole contention was that termination was not in CD’s best interest because less-restrictive relative or Javier placement options were available; the court affirmed termination of Lisa’s rights but remanded for resolution of unresolved paternity/parental-rights issues affecting adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was improper because a less-restrictive relative placement (Boldras or Javier) was available | Dominguez: termination premature; relatives or Javier could provide permanency without severing bonds | DHS: no approved relative custody at hearing; Boldras declined/failed to complete home study; Javier not a viable legal placement option | Court: affirmed termination—relative preference weighed against facts; no approved relative placement existed pre-termination, so termination not clearly erroneous |
| Whether Lisa may challenge the court’s treatment of Javier’s parental status | Lisa: court erred in dismissing Javier as a parent and should have considered placement with him in best-interest analysis | DHS: Lisa lacks standing to challenge alleged violations of Javier’s rights | Court: majority finds Lisa lacks standing to press Javier-rights claim for reversal of termination; concurrence disagrees and says court erred in concluding Javier is not a parent and remand needed to adjudicate paternity/rights before adoption |
| Whether termination met the best-interest standard given adoptability and potential harm | Lisa: less-restrictive options existed making termination unnecessary | DHS: CD is adoptable; returning to Lisa would harm child due to instability and drug use; termination furthers permanency | Court: best-interest finding supported by clear-and-convincing evidence as to adoptability and potential harm; affirmed termination of Lisa’s rights |
| Whether CD can be cleared for adoption immediately given unresolved paternity/legal-parent issues | Lisa: unresolved parental rights (Javier/unknown father) mean adoption is premature | DHS: (implicitly) proceed with permanency planning; court previously treated Javier as nonparent | Court: affirms termination of Lisa’s rights but remands—adoption is premature until paternity and any legal father’s rights are properly adjudicated (concurring opinion stresses this point) |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 575 S.W.3d 578 (Ark. App. 2019) (reversed termination where relative placement preference was improperly disregarded)
- Cole v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 543 S.W.3d 540 (Ark. App. 2018) (mother lacked standing to challenge alleged violations of legal father’s rights)
- Howerton v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 506 S.W.3d 872 (Ark. App. 2016) (reversed termination where court divested husband of rights after finding biological father)