Ekberg v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 103
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- DHS removed two children (E.H., b. 2007; H.A., b. 2013) after school reports and photographs showed extensive bruising to E.H.; allegations included spanking with a board and other physical abuse.
- Texas child‑welfare involvement preceded the Arkansas case; Texas had an open maltreatment matter concerning Jerry Ashmore and E.H., and the family moved to Arkansas before completing services.
- Adjudication (Sept. 2014) found the children dependent‑neglected and DHS found Jerry the physical‑abuse offender; parents did not appeal the adjudication.
- Over ~19 months parents participated in services (therapy, parenting, drug screens), but the trial court found inconsistent explanations, lack of full disclosure, and no true accountability—particularly by Jerry—so reunification progress was insufficient.
- DHS changed the permanency goal to adoption and filed to terminate parental rights; after a two‑day termination hearing the circuit court terminated both parents’ rights to E.H. and H.A., finding statutory grounds and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of abuse finding supporting termination | Parents: record lacks reliable evidence Jerry abused E.H.; child lies/recanted; Texas finding was not proved and administrative hearing reversed registry placement | DHS: adjudication found abuse by preponderance; parents did not appeal adjudication so those findings are final | Court: Adjudication stands unappealed; sufficient evidence supports abuse finding and may be relied on in termination proceedings |
| Failure to remedy / 12‑month ground (Ark. Code §9‑27‑341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a)) | Parents: they completed services and were prevented from doing more; DHS required admission of abuse as a precondition | DHS: parents remained in denial, failed to accept responsibility or show meaningful, sustained change after 12+ months | Court: Clear and convincing evidence the conditions causing removal persisted despite DHS efforts; statutory ground proven |
| Best interest (adoptability & potential harm) | Parents: termination extreme; insufficient proof children are adoptable, especially E.H.; DHS relied on speculation about potential harm | DHS: adoption specialist and caseworker testimony support adoptability; potential harm (including repeat abuse) need not be specifically identified | Court: Considering adoptability and forward‑looking potential harm, clear and convincing evidence supports that termination is in children’s best interests |
| Preclusion of relitigation / appellate procedure | Parents: administrative reversal of registry placement and expert testimony undermine DHS narrative; they raised procedural fairness issues | DHS: adjudication orders are final and appealable; parents did not timely appeal those rulings | Court: Adjudication is final and unappealed; appellate review is constrained by that fact; administrative order carried little weight here |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (establishes de novo review of TPR cases and burden of proof requirements)
- Neves da Rocha v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 93 Ark. App. 386, 219 S.W.3d 660 (adjudication orders are final and relitigation in termination proceedings is prohibited)
- Fox v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2014 Ark. App. 666, 448 S.W.3d 735 (potential harm analysis for best‑interest determination is forward‑looking and need not identify specific harm)
- Hamman v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2014 Ark. App. 295, 435 S.W.3d 495 (failure to remedy and subsequent factors can establish statutory grounds for termination)
- Madison v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2013 Ark. App. 368, 428 S.W.3d 555 (caseworker testimony that children are adoptable can support adoptability finding)