Ford v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2017 Ark. App. 211
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- DHS filed for emergency custody after newborn N.F. and parents Samantha and Christopher tested positive for methamphetamine; another child, N.W., later tested positive. All four children were removed.
- Case plan required drug screens, counseling, parenting classes, psychological and substance-abuse evaluations, stable housing and employment; parents repeatedly tested positive and were minimally compliant.
- Permanency plan changed to termination and adoption after ~11 months; DHS and the children’s attorney ad litem petitioned to terminate parental rights. Termination hearing held July 13, 2016.
- Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children’s best interest and that statutory grounds (including aggravated circumstances and twelve‑month out‑of‑home adjudication) were met as to Samantha, Christopher, and Anthony.
- Samantha’s and Christopher’s counsel filed no‑merit briefs seeking withdrawal; Anthony appealed on the merits arguing inadequate meaningful services and available relative placement (his mother).
- Court of Appeals affirmed all terminations, granted withdrawal for the no‑merit counsel, and rejected Anthony’s arguments (found services sufficient and placement with his mother inappropriate).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in children’s best interest | DHS: parents’ ongoing methamphetamine use, lack of visits, and children’s adoptability support termination | Samantha/Christopher: ask for more time; claim progress | Held: termination in children’s best interest (continued drug use, lack of contact, adoptability) |
| Whether statutory grounds (aggravated circumstances / 12‑month removal) supported termination | DHS: adjudication + 12 months out of home and aggravated circumstances due to little likelihood services would reunify | Parents: compliance and participation in services | Held: statutory grounds proved by clear and convincing evidence; aggravated circumstances established |
| Whether DHS provided meaningful efforts to rehabilitate Anthony | Anthony: DHS failed to provide meaningful services | DHS: offered drug/alcohol assessment, psych eval, counseling, parenting classes; Anthony was noncompliant | Held: DHS provided meaningful efforts; even if disputed, aggravated‑circumstances ground sufficed |
| Whether Anthony’s mother was an appropriate relative placement for N.W. | Anthony: his mother filed for custody and would be appropriate caretaker | DHS/court: mother appeared late, did not attend termination hearing, lives near Anthony, concerns about his anger and unsupervised contact | Held: trial court did not err in denying placement with Anthony’s mother; not in child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Linker‑Flores v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004) (procedural rule for no‑merit appeals and counsel withdrawal)
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (2001) (de novo review standard for termination cases)
- Anderson v. Douglas, 310 Ark. 633, 839 S.W.2d 196 (1992) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (1997) (appellate standard for reviewing clear‑and‑convincing findings)
- Yarborough v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 96 Ark. App. 247, 240 S.W.3d 626 (2006) (definition of clearly erroneous review)
- Albright v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 97 Ark. App. 277, 248 S.W.3d 498 (2007) (only one statutory ground required to terminate parental rights)
- Allen v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 384 S.W.3d 7 (Ark. App. 2011) (continued illegal drug use evidences indifference and risk to children)
- Franklin v. State, 327 Ark. 537, 939 S.W.2d 836 (1997) (appellant may not present pro se points that conflict with counsel’s representation)