Fisher v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
569 S.W.3d 886
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- AF, removed from mother’s care at about one month old, was adjudicated dependent-neglected; Fisher was adjudicated the biological father. DHS retained custody and the initial case goal was relative placement.
- Fisher was ordered to engage in services (psychological evaluation, counseling, drug screening); he missed/declined several services and did not complete counseling or drug screens.
- DHS explored placement with paternal relatives (grandmother, grandfather, uncle); grandmother was rejected by the court due to safety and credibility concerns; the uncle refused a home study; an ICPC request for the grandfather was pending and would take time.
- After ~15 months in foster care, DHS and the attorney ad litem sought termination of both parents’ rights on multiple statutory grounds; the termination hearing elicited testimony that AF was adoptable with many prospective matches.
- The circuit court terminated Fisher’s parental rights, finding termination in AF’s best interest because waiting for relative placement would prolong instability; Fisher appealed only the best-interest determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Fisher) | Defendant's Argument (DHS / Circuit Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interest given unresolved relative-placement possibilities | Court should have delayed termination or completed assessments of relatives (uncle, grandfather) before terminating rights | DHS pursued relatives; uncle refused home study, grandfather’s ICPC was pending, and AF needed timely permanency after 15+ months in care | Affirmed — court properly prioritized child’s need for permanency over further delay for ICPC/home-study completion |
| Whether the court was required to pursue less extreme remedies before terminating rights | Fisher argued statute requires looking for less extreme alternatives (relative placement) | Court and DHS argued Fisher did not seek reunification or participate in services; waiting would extend instability | Affirmed — Fisher’s inaction and lengthy foster care justified termination rather than further delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Bunch v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 523 S.W.3d 913 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (standards for de novo review and clear-and-convincing proof in termination appeals)
- Ivers v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 250 S.W.3d 279 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007) (consideration of less extreme remedies where parent demonstrates efforts toward reunification)
- Rhine v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 278 S.W.3d 118 (Ark. Ct. App. 2008) (continuance and procedural fairness in termination proceedings)
- Lively v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 456 S.W.3d 383 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (one-parent termination cases raising loss of child’s relationship with terminated parent’s relatives)
- Robinson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 520 S.W.3d 702 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (statutory intent to secure permanency when reunification is not possible within a reasonable time)
- Smith v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 523 S.W.3d 920 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (rejecting ‘‘wait-and-see’’ approaches that prolong instability for children)