Donley v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2014 Ark. App. 335
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Tasha Donley’s parental rights to daughter B.D. (born Nov. 30, 2010) were terminated by the Drew County Circuit Court; Donley appealed.
- Donley does not challenge the sufficiency of evidence supporting termination; she challenges only the court’s refusal to place B.D. with Donley’s sister as a less-restrictive alternative.
- Donley’s sister already had custody of B.D.’s younger sibling; Donley argues statutory preference for relative placement required placement with the sister.
- Donley relied on Ark. Code Ann. §§ 9-27-355(b)(1) and 9-28-105 (preferential consideration for relatives in DHS placements).
- The Court of Appeals treated the question as legal: whether the relative-placement preference applies in contested termination-of-parental-rights (TPR) proceedings as an alternative to termination.
- The court affirmed termination, holding the relative-preference provisions govern custodial placement by DHS but do not apply to the TPR statute or bar termination when statutory grounds and best-interest findings support it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS’s statutory relative-placement preference requires placing the child with a relative instead of terminating parental rights | Donley: statutes require preferential placement with a relative who meets standards and is in child’s best interest; court should place B.D. with Donley’s sister as less-restrictive alternative | DHS/Appellee: Relative-placement preference governs DHS custodial placement decisions, not the TPR statute; it does not prevent termination when statutory grounds and best interest are met | The court held the relative-placement preference does not apply in TPR proceedings; denial of placement with the sister did not render termination erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2014 Ark. App. 278 (termination is an extreme remedy but not to the detriment of the child)
- Washington v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2014 Ark. App. 293 (standard of review for TPR is de novo; clear-and-convincing requirement)
- Smith v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2013 Ark. App. 753 (clear-and-convincing evidence standard and appellate review explained)
- Ogden v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 577 (statutory relative-placement preference in §§ 9-27-355 and 9-28-105 does not apply to TPR proceedings)
- Henderson v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 430 (same principle regarding relative placement and TPR)
- Davis v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 469 (375 S.W.3d 721) (relative-preference statutory provision applies to initial placement by DHS, not to placement during TPR proceedings)