Ellis v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2016 Ark. 441
| Ark. | 2016Background
- C.E., born August 18, 2014, was removed from his mother and placed in ADHS custody after the mother tested positive for drugs; Ray Ellis was adjudicated C.E.’s legal father.
- The circuit court ordered a home study of paternal uncle Josh Ellis and his wife Tamara; the March 4, 2015 home study was favorable and identified no disqualifying safety or background issues.
- C.E. was placed with foster parents Matthew and Stephanie Cole from August 2014; the Coles later sought to intervene and to adopt C.E.
- Ray moved to have the court consider and approve the Ellises’ home study and to place C.E. with them; ADHS recommended placement with the Ellises but witnesses acknowledged C.E. was bonded to the Coles.
- The circuit court denied Ray’s motion to place C.E. with the Ellises, granted the Coles’ motion to intervene, changed the permanency goal to adoption, and kept C.E. in foster care; Ray appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ray) | Defendant's / Ad Litem Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court must give preferential consideration to a relative placement (Ellises) over nonrelative foster parents | Statutory preference requires placement with a fit relative when in child’s best interest; court should have approved favorable home study and placed C.E. with the Ellises | ADHS and ad litem acknowledged the preference but argued permanency and bonding with foster parents, and contended permanency statute governs goal selection | Court reversed: statutory preference for relative placement applies and court erred by not considering/placing C.E. with the Ellises after the satisfactory home study |
| Whether the circuit court erred by changing the permanency goal to adoption | Ray: adoption goal is a lower preference than placement with a relative; court should have given priority to relative placement | Ad litem/ADHS: adoption was appropriate because C.E. had bonded with foster parents and had been in their care long-term; permanency statute permits adoption as proper goal | Court held change to adoption was premature because the court failed to first apply the mandatory review and relative-preference statutes; reversed and remanded |
| Whether the court’s failure to hold a timely six-month review hearing affected the outcome | Ray: the mandated review would have produced the home study in time and triggered the relative-preference analysis before foster parents sought adoption/intervention | ADHS/Ad litem: dispute about preservation and relevance of missed review; focus was on permanency hearing evidence | Court found failure to hold the mandatory review hearing was error that prejudiced Ray’s statutory preference rights; remanded for consideration of the home study and best-interest analysis |
| Whether foster parents could intervene and adopt absent application of the relative-preference statute | Ray: foster parents’ intervention and adoption request cannot override statutory preference for a fit relative | Ad litem/ADHS: foster parents had bonded with the child; intervention proper and adoption permissible under permanency statute | Court concluded the intervention and adoption preference cannot supplant the statutory relative-preference; vacated placement decision and remanded for proper consideration of relatives |
Key Cases Cited
- Ponder v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 494 S.W.3d 426 (Ark. 2016) (standard of review and clear-error in dependency-neglect appeals)
- Lambert v. LQ Mgmt., L.L.C., 426 S.W.3d 437 (Ark. 2013) (general statutes yield to specific statutes on point)
- Comcast of Little Rock, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 385 S.W.3d 137 (Ark. 2011) (statutory-construction principles regarding specificity)
- Gyalog v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 461 S.W.3d 734 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (permanency goals and the focus on permanency)
- Baker v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 8 S.W.3d 499 (Ark. 2000) (best-interest principle paramount in dependency proceedings)
- Davis v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 375 S.W.3d 721 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (court of appeals precedent on scope of relative-preference that the majority overruled)