Drake v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2014 Ark. App. 475
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Drake appeals a December 2013 order terminating his parental rights to his son C.D. in Sebastian County Circuit Court.
- DHS sought termination citing prior involuntary termination of Drake’s rights to his siblings and noting C.D. was adoptable.
- The trial court had previously terminated Drake’s rights to B.D. and K.D. in October 2012.
- Evidence showed Tammie Drake’s extensive mental-health issues and noncompliance with treatment, with Virgil Drake failing to recognize the danger.
- The court found C.D. was adoptable and that returning him posed a great risk of harm to him if placed with the Drakes.
- Drake challenges the best-interest determination; the State contends the record supports termination as in C.D.’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best-interest finding supported? | Drake argues no clear evidence of harm if returned. | DHS contends evidence shows potential harm and adoptability support termination. | Yes; best interest supported by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Potential-harm standard satisfied? | Drake asserts no danger to C.D. from Tammie. | DHS argues forward-looking risk remains given Tammie’s issues and prior terminations. | Yes; potential-harm finding supported. |
| Ground for termination proven? | Drake concedes the statutory ground exists (prior involuntary termination of a sibling). | DHS maintains the ground is established and properly applied here. | Yes; statutory ground proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (2001) (de novo review; clear and convincing standard)
- M.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 58 Ark. App. 302, 952 S.W.2d 177 (1997) (best-interests analysis in termination cases)
- Welch v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 798, 378 S.W.3d 290 (2010) (potential-harm need not be actual; forward-looking)
- Collins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2013 Ark. App. 90 (2013) (broader, forward-looking assessment of potential harm)
- Carroll v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 85 Ark. App. 255, 148 S.W.3d 780 (2004) (potential-harm as a factor in termination analysis)
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (1997) (clear-and-convincing evidence review standard)