Ford v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2014 Ark. App. 226
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- AP, born Aug. 2009, has severe congenital and developmental impairments (microencephaly, ventriculomegaly, corpus callosum defect, scoliosis) and has required 24-hour nursing care at Arkansas Pediatric Facility (APF) virtually her entire life.
- DHS took emergency custody at discharge from the hospital in 2009; AP was adjudicated dependent-neglected and placed at APF; reunification was the initial goal but services and reviews continued over four years.
- Daniel Ford (father) visited intermittently, lived with his mother in Springdale, worked low-wage jobs, and had custody of a toddler from another relationship; he lacked a driver’s license and stable home-based care plans for AP.
- DHS alleged Ford failed to appreciate AP’s medical needs, expressed an intent to remove AP to his home despite medical advice, and did not demonstrate mastery of required caregiving skills despite offered training.
- In May 2013 DHS changed the permanency goal to adoption/guardianship and filed to terminate Ford’s parental rights under the statutory “other factors or issues” ground; the trial court terminated his rights in Sept. 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved the statutory “other factors or issues” ground (Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)) by clear and convincing evidence | DHS: Ford manifested incapacity/indifference after the original petition by not understanding AP’s needs and insisting on taking her home, making placement with him contrary to AP’s welfare | Ford: He only hoped to bring AP home someday and did not demonstrate incapacity or indifference; he was willing to follow medical advice | Court: Affirmed — Ford’s lack of understanding and insistence on home placement despite medical evidence satisfied the “other factors” ground by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether termination of Ford’s parental rights was in AP’s best interest | DHS/Ad Litem: Termination necessary to provide AP permanency and the opportunity for adoption; continued custody with Ford posed risk given his unrealistic expectations and lack of preparation | Ford: Termination not in AP’s best interest because AP is unlikely to be adopted or leave the facility; he desired custody and planned to arrange care | Court: Affirmed — best-interest finding supported by consideration of adoptability and potential harm; termination was justified to protect AP’s health and secure permanency |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207 (discussing de novo review and termination standards)
- M.T. v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 58 Ark. App. 302 (statutory requirement of at least one ground plus best-interest finding)
- Camarillo-Cox v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 360 Ark. 340 (parental compliance vs. stability and safety for child)
- Anderson v. Douglas, 310 Ark. 633 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Pine v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 379 S.W.3d 703 (best-interest—potential harm need not be specific and adoptability is a factor)
- J.T. v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243 (appellate review standard for clear-and-convincing findings)