Dunn v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2016 Ark. App. 34
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- DHS filed emergency custody for three children in March 2014; K.D. born March 7, 2014; drug use by parents evidenced by positive screens and hair tests; adjudicated dependent/neglected May 7, 2014 with reunification goal; August 2014 review found some compliance but concerns lingered; February 2015 permanency order shifted goal to termination due to instability and positive THC tests; DHS petition to terminate filed April 2, 2015; termination hearing May 4, 2015; trial court terminated parental rights June 9, 2015 based on aggravated circumstances and ongoing risk; Dr. DeYoub diagnosed cannabis-use disorder for both parents; evidence showed instability in housing and employment and lack of credible progress; appeal challenges grounds and best-interest finding; standard of review de novo with clear and convincing evidence required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aggravated circumstances support termination for William | Dunn argues prompt progress and stability; not little likelihood of reunification | Dunn asserts ongoing employment and housing and credibility issues undermine aggravation | Yes; aggravated circumstances established by little likelihood of reunification |
| Whether the best-interest finding supports termination | Parents capable of improving; child stability requires more time | Parents' instability and drug use threaten health/safety; permanency favors adoption | Yes; termination is in children's best interest |
| Whether Jamie's grounds included in b(3)(B)(i)(a) were proven | Jamie failed to remedy conditions after 12 months | Jamie argues some progress and ability to reunify | Proved for Jamie as to prongs (i)(a) and (ix)(a)(4) based on other siblings and 12-month nonremedy |
| Whether other statutory grounds (b)(3)(B)(ix)(a)(3) were proven | There was little likelihood of successful reunification | Challenging the gravity and interpretation of “aggravated circumstances” | Proved; little likelihood of reunification |
| Whether the evidence supports termination as to both parents despite credibility findings | Parents' drug use and instability persisted despite some progress | Progress warrants continued monitoring and modification of plan | Yes; clear and convincing evidence as to best interest and grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2013 Ark. App. 715 (Ark. App. 2013) (necessity of clear and convincing evidence in termination appeals)
- M.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 58 Ark. App. 302, 952 S.W.2d 177 (Ark. App. 1997) (standard of review for termination decisions)
- Anderson v. Douglas, 310 Ark. 633, 839 S.W.2d 196 (Ark. 1992) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (Ark. 1997) (clear error review standard in RMT proceedings)
- Yarborough v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 96 Ark. App. 247, 240 S.W.3d 626 (Ark. App. 2006) (tool for evaluating credibility and factual sufficiency)
- Chaffin v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 522, 471 S.W.3d 251 (Ark. App. 2015) (forward-looking best-interest assessment in termination cases)
- Dozier v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 17, 372 S.W.3d 849 (Ark. App. 2010) (permanency priorities may override parental requests for time)
- Willingham v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2014 Ark. App. 568 (Ark. App. 2014) (single-ground sufficiency for termination under 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(ix)(a)(3))