Edwards v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2010 Ark. App. 739
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Appellant Kathryn Edwards appeals the termination of her parental rights to EE, born August 29, 2006.
- EE has been in DHS care since June 2008 after DHS found Edwards intoxicated and unable to care for EE.
- DHS offered extensive services: medical, Schmieding evaluation, substance-abuse treatment, counseling, inpatient treatment, transportation, visits, parenting classes.
- Edwards completed inpatient treatment and the drug/alcohol assessment; some counseling and AA/NA attendance were documented, but counseling continuity was inconsistent.
- EE has resided in foster care since 2008; there was no successful trial placement; DHS identified EE as adoptable and sought termination to facilitate adoption.
- The trial court found termination in EE’s best interests and that Edwards failed to remedy conditions and that DHS made meaningful reunification efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is termination in EE's best interests proven by clear and convincing evidence? | Edwards contends no clear and convincing show of best interests. | DHS argues EE is adoptable and best interests favor termination. | Yes; best interests supported by adoptability and risk from return. |
| Did DHS meaningfully attempt reunification despite Edwards's noncompliance? | Edwards claims DHS failed to provide focused one-on-one counseling. | DHS maintains meaningful efforts were made. | Yes; court affirmed DHS’s meaningful efforts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones-Lee v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 316 S.W.3d 261 (Ark. 2009) (review limits on reversing reunification efforts findings)
- McFarland v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 210 S.W.3d 143 (Ark. App. 2005) (best-interests factors need not be clear and convincing)
- Grant v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 227 (Ark. App. 2010) (de novo standard; clear and convincing evidence standard for TPR)