Fisher v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
542 S.W.3d 168
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Termination proceedings concerning parents (Carrie and Michael) and two children, J.F. and K.F.; the circuit court terminated parental rights.
- Evidence included parents' major drug problems, instability, and failure to comply with court-ordered services; Michael additionally failed substance-abuse treatment and had unstable housing.
- J.F. has significant behavioral and mental-health issues; witnesses and documents indicated sibling visits would be beneficial, but the court found the children likely could not remain together.
- DHS did not introduce a 2017 foster-care/adoption report into the record; appellate review is limited to the trial record.
- The trial court considered adoptability, child safety risks upon return, and subsequent-factor grounds; the court found termination served the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in children’s best interest given adoptability concerns | Carrie: Court lacked evidence on likelihood J.F. and K.F. could be adopted together; bare minimum evidence on adoptability insufficient | DHS: No need to prove probability of adoption; court must consider adoptability but not by clear-and-convincing standard; weighing of evidence suffices | Court: Affirmed; trial court considered adoptability, sibling-placement issues, children’s needs, and parents’ unfitness and did not clearly err |
| Whether DHS must disprove barriers to adoption with clear-and-convincing evidence | Carrie: Implied challenge that evidence was insufficient to show adoptability or best interest | DHS: DHS need not disprove all barriers; adoptability need not meet clear-and-convincing standard; court must weigh evidence | Court: Agreed with DHS precedent that adoptability is considered but not required to be proven by clear-and-convincing evidence |
| Whether Michael’s parental rights could be terminated on subsequent-factors ground | Michael: Insufficient evidence of termination grounds and best interest for J.F. | DHS: Showed subsequent factors (noncompliance, substance use, failed services) making return contrary to child's welfare | Court: Affirmed termination on subsequent-factors ground; evidence showed incapacity/indifference and failure to remedy issues |
| Whether appellate court may consider post-trial reports not in record | Carrie: Cited 2017 DHS report in brief | DHS/Appellate: Matters outside record not considered; appellant bears burden to include sufficient record | Held: Appellate court declined to consider the 2017 report for lack of record inclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Renfro v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 385 S.W.3d 285 (Ark. Ct. App.) (warning that "bare minimum" evidence on adoptability is insufficient)
- Hamman v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 435 S.W.3d 495 (Ark. Ct. App.) (likelihood of adoption must be considered but need not be proved by clear and convincing evidence)
- Caldwell v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 484 S.W.3d 719 (Ark. Ct. App.) (caseworker testimony that a child is adoptable can suffice)
- Sharks v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 502 S.W.3d 569 (Ark. Ct. App.) (no required "magic words" or specific quantum of evidence on adoptability)
- Fredrick v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 377 S.W.3d 306 (Ark. Ct. App.) (child’s need for permanency may outweigh parent’s request for more time)
- Dep't of Career Educ., Div. of Rehab. Servs. v. Means, 426 S.W.3d 922 (Ark.) (appellate courts do not consider matters outside the record; appellant must supply sufficient record)