Duckery v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2016 Ark. App. 358
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- DHS removed three children (Y.D., S.M., and P.M.) after newborn P.M. and mother Tiffany Duckery tested positive for drugs and concerns arose about the mother’s mental state and safety of the children.
- Appellant stipulated that the children were dependent-neglected; reunification was initially the goal but was later changed to adoption after she failed to complete recommended services.
- DHS alleged grounds for termination including abandonment, post-petition factors showing placement with the parent was contrary to children’s welfare, and aggravated circumstances; termination petition filed September 10, 2015.
- The family service worker testified the children had no severe medical/behavioral issues, were doing well in foster care, and were adoptable; appellant admitted continued drug use and refusal of inpatient treatment.
- The trial court terminated Duckery’s parental rights, finding all three statutory grounds proven by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in the children’s best interest, including adoptability and potential harm if returned to mother.
- On appeal Duckery challenged only the best-interest/adoptability finding, arguing the caseworker’s testimony was insufficient because she was not an adoption specialist and had not run a matching list.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Duckery) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in children’s best interest given lack of evidence of adoptability | Caseworker’s opinion insufficient; no adoption-specialist report or matching list, so adoptability not shown | Caseworker’s testimony about children’s circumstances and lack of barriers supports adoptability; adoptability need not be proved by clear and convincing evidence | Aff’d: trial court’s best-interest finding upheld; caseworker testimony sufficient to support adoptability finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Posey v. Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services, 370 Ark. 500, 262 S.W.3d 159 (defines clear-and-convincing standard and de novo review with deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Reid v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2011 Ark. 187, 380 S.W.3d 918 (only one statutory ground needed to support termination)
- Hamman v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2014 Ark. App. 295, 435 S.W.3d 495 (likelihood of adoption must be considered but need not be proved by clear and convincing evidence; caseworker testimony can suffice)
- Grant v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2010 Ark. App. 636, 378 S.W.3d 227 (distinguished — caution where adoptability evidence is conclusory, as with blanket statements about adoptability)
- Caldwell v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2016 Ark. App. 144, 484 S.W.3d 719 (caseworker testimony focused on child’s specific circumstances can support adoptability finding)