Earls v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. 171
| Ark. | 2017

Background

  • Twins S.M. and D.M. were removed at birth (July 2014) after testing positive for methamphetamine; DHS initiated dependency-neglect proceedings and later sought termination of parental rights.
  • Jacob Earls was a putative father, later shown by DNA (May 1, 2015) to have a 99.99% probability of paternity; the record lacked an explicit court order formally declaring him the legal/biological father prior to termination.
  • Earls was incarcerated for much of the case; DHS did not provide in‑custody services and asserted incarceration prevented meaningful contact or provision of services.
  • DHS filed for termination (Jan. 2016) under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(b) (failure to remedy conditions despite meaningful efforts) and (b)(3)(B)(ii)(a) (willful failure to support or maintain meaningful contact for 12 months).
  • At the March 30, 2016 termination hearing Earls (with counsel) argued DHS failed to provide services, he had attempted contact, and poverty/incarceration prevented support; the circuit court terminated his parental rights.
  • The Arkansas Supreme Court granted review and reversed, holding the record did not establish Earls’s legal status as a “parent” such that the 12‑month statutory bases applied; the Court of Appeals opinion was vacated.

Issues

Issue Earls’ Argument DHS’ Argument Held
Whether Earls qualified as a “parent” for § 9‑27‑341 12‑month grounds Earls: his legal status as parent was not established, so 12‑month statutes could not support termination DHS: Earls failed to preserve the argument / was treated as putative father and received parental rights in proceedings Court: preserved on appeal; record lacks an order establishing legal/biological parent status, so statutory 12‑month requirement did not apply — reversal
Whether DHS made meaningful efforts to rehabilitate Earls while incarcerated Earls: DHS made no efforts or offered services while he was incarcerated; he attempted contact DHS: incarceration impeded provision of services; Earls had opportunities and was on notice Court: did not reach full merits because absence of parent status was dispositive to statutory grounds
Whether Earls willfully failed to support or maintain meaningful contact for 12 months Earls: indigence and incarceration prevented support; he attempted contact and sought DNA/test results DHS: lack of meaningful contact and support justified termination under statutory test Court: 12‑month statutory predicate not shown because parent status unestablished; claim not sustained for termination
Whether termination was otherwise in children’s best interest Earls: sought reunification upon release; contested grounds but did not contest best‑interest finding on appeal DHS: termination served children’s best interests given prolonged out‑of‑home placement Court: did not reverse best‑interest finding but reversed termination because of legal‑status defect

Key Cases Cited

  • Crawford v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 330 Ark. 152 (1997) (termination of parental rights is an extreme remedy)
  • Bush v. Dietz, 284 Ark. 191 (1984) (heavy burden on party seeking termination)
  • L.W. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 44 (2011) (two‑step termination analysis: statutory ground then best interest)
  • Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207 (2001) (de novo review of termination cases)
  • M.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 58 Ark. App. 302 (1997) (clear‑and‑convincing standard and clearly erroneous review standard)
  • Baker v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 340 Ark. 42 (2000) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
  • Wade v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 337 Ark. 353 (1999) (only one statutory ground required for termination)
  • Ingle v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2014 Ark. 53 (2014) (preservation rules in dependency‑neglect appeals)
  • Bohannon v. Robinson, 2014 Ark. 458 (2014) (preservation and appellate review principles)
  • Potter v. City of Tontitown, 371 Ark. 200 (2007) (statutory construction: give words ordinary meaning)
  • Lawhon Farm Servs. v. Brown, 335 Ark. 272 (1998) (construe statute with related statutes for overall effect)
  • Ortho‑McNeil‑Janssen Pharm., Inc. v. State, 2014 Ark. 124 (2014) (rules on statutory interpretation)
  • Roberts v. Roberts, 2009 Ark. 567 (2009) (caution against reversing for unaddressed reasons)
  • Sullivan v. State, 2012 Ark. 74 (2012) (issues of statutory interpretation must be raised below)
Read the full case