Everett v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
506 S.W.3d 287
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- Child L.E. was removed after mother’s drug use; Jesse Everett (father) was named in dependency-neglect proceedings and later proven to be the biological father.
- Everett had a significant criminal history and lengthy sentence; he was incarcerated at various times during the case and had served roughly half of L.E.’s life in custody by the termination hearing.
- Court-ordered services for Everett included drug screens, substance-abuse and psychological assessments, parenting classes, paternity establishment, and stable housing/employment; supervised visitation was allowed contingent on negative screens.
- DHS filed to terminate Everett’s parental rights alleging lack of significant contact or, alternatively, grounds including: (a) child out of custody >12 months with unremedied conditions despite DHS efforts, (b) subsequent factors showing return would be contrary to child’s welfare, and (c) parent sentenced for a period constituting a substantial portion of the child’s life.
- Trial court terminated Everett’s rights based on the subsequent-factors and substantial-incarceration grounds and found termination in L.E.’s best interest because the child was adoptable and return posed potential harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Everett) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination is supported by statutory grounds (substantial incarceration) | Everett’s sentence constituted a substantial period of the child’s life, supporting termination | Everett argued against termination; he noted participation in treatment and imminent release dates | Court held substantial-incarceration ground proved; termination not clearly erroneous |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interest | L.E. was adoptable; Everett lacked suitable housing, minimal contact, and ongoing incarceration posed potential harm | Everett pointed to progress in treatment and intent to reside with family or Our House on release | Court found clear-and-convincing evidence termination served child’s best interest |
| Whether Everett was entitled to additional time for reunification | DHS argued child's need for permanence outweighed more time given father’s limited compliance and incarceration | Everett requested more time to rehabilitate and complete programs | Court denied additional time; need for permanence controlled given long removal and minimal progress |
| Whether court erred by not placing child with relatives before termination | DHS noted statutory preference ranking termination/adoption above permanent relative placement when child is not already with a relative | Everett sought relative placement instead of termination | Court held no error: law permits termination/adoption preference over permanent relative placement where child not already with relative |
Key Cases Cited
- Linker-Flores v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (Ark. 2003) (procedural standard for counsel withdrawal and no-merit appeal in DHS cases)
- Fox v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 448 S.W.3d 735 (Ark. App. 2014) (termination is an extreme remedy; burden on party seeking termination)
- Lee v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 285 S.W.3d 277 (Ark. App. 2008) (only one statutory ground required to support termination)
- Sanford v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 474 S.W.3d 503 (Ark. App. 2015) (analysis focuses on actual length of sentence when assessing substantial-incarceration ground)
- Weatherspoon v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 426 S.W.3d 520 (Ark. App. 2013) (best-interest considerations include adoptability and potential harm of return)