Doran v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2014 Ark. App. 505
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Appellant Jean Doran, an elderly woman with vision loss and diagnosed frontal-lobe dementia, was the subject of an Adult Protective Services (APS) referral alleging inability to care for herself, refusal of home services, medication noncompliance, and unsafe living conditions.
- DHS obtained an ex parte emergency custody order and a probable-cause finding in April–May 2013 after multiple providers reported appellant’s refusal of services and observed disorientation, cluttered home, unused medications, and missed bills.
- A long-term custody hearing was held; the probate court relied on DHS’s report, medical affidavits (Drs. Baker and Tremwel), and testimony from DHS nurse Louise Spaunhurst and other service providers to find appellant unable to protect herself from self-neglect.
- Appellant contested the findings, offering her own testimony and two witnesses; disputes centered on her capacity and whether less-restrictive alternatives had been adequately considered.
- The probate court entered an amended order committing appellant to the long-term protective custody of DHS; appellant appealed, raising sufficiency of evidence and least-restrictive-means arguments.
- The Court of Appeals, after remand to supplement the record, affirmed, holding the court’s findings were not clearly erroneous and that the least-restrictive-environment argument was not preserved below.
Issues
| Issue | Doran's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported long-term custody under the AMCA | Doran argued the evidence was insufficient and contradicted by her testimony | DHS argued evidence of self-neglect, medical opinions, and provider testimony showed incapacity and danger | Affirmed — court’s findings were not clearly erroneous; evidence supported placement |
| Whether the court erred by not finding institutional care was the least restrictive alternative | Doran argued the court failed to determine whether institutional care was least restrictive | DHS argued custody was necessary for protection and procedures were followed | Not considered on merits — issue not raised below, so forfeited on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 375 Ark. 402 (court reviews probate proceedings de novo but gives deference to credibility findings)
- Buchte v. State, 337 Ark. 591 (discusses appellate review of probate and credibility determinations)
- Campbell v. State, 51 Ark. App. 147 (addresses standards in probate proceedings)
- Ridenoure v. Ball, 381 S.W.3d 101 (factfinder’s credibility determinations govern disputed evidence)