Fox v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2014 Ark. App. 666
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- DHS emergency hold on D.C., five-year-old, after infant brother N.F. killed by Tiffany's husband Travis Fox.
- Circuit court adjudicated D.C. dependent-neglected six months later based on Travis's confessed abuse and Tiffany's failure to protect/supervise.
- Court found potential for abuse known or should have been known by Tiffany; return to Tiffany not in D.C.'s best interest; Dr. Faitak opined returning would be actively dangerous due to Tiffany's borderline personality disorder.
- Subsequent services: counseling, parenting classes, and domestic-violence classes; Tiffany made limited progress; an incident where Tiffany allegedly choked her boyfriend occurred.
- Court changed goal to adoption at permanency; DHS petitioned for termination of parental rights in March 2014; court found termination in D.C.'s best interest and potential harm if returned.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is clear and convincing evidence of potential harm if D.C. is returned | Fox contends insufficient proof of harm upon return. | DHS asserts potential harm shown by lack of insight and ongoing risks. | Yes; record shows potential harm if returned. |
| Whether Tiffany's ongoing emotional instability and dangerous behavior justify termination | Fox argues progress and therapy support reunification. | DHS argues continued instability and lack of responsibility remain. | Yes; trial court correctly found ongoing instability and risk. |
| Whether termination was in D.C.'s best interest given adoption likelihood | Fox contends reunification remains possible with services. | DHS maintains adoption is likely and safety requires termination. | Yes; termination affirmed due to best interests and adoption prospects. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weatherspoon v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2013 Ark. App. 104, 426 S.W.3d 520 (Ark. 2013) (clear-and-convincing standard for best interests in termination cases)
- Stockstill v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2014 Ark. App. 427 (Ark. App. 2014) (heavy burden on party seeking termination; great weight to trial judge’s observations)
- Osborne v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 252 S.W.3d 138 (Ark. App. 2007) (termination involves extreme remedy; health and well-being of child controls)
- Welch v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 290 (Ark. App. 2010) (potential-harm analysis is forward-looking and not requires actual harm)
- Collins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2013 Ark. App. 90 (Ark. App. 2013) (contextualizes forward-looking potential harm in termination analysis)
- Vasquez v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 575, 337 S.W.3d 552 (Ark. App. 2009) (parental duty to protect; can be unfit without direct injury by parent)
- Drake v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2014 Ark. App. 475, 442 S.W.3d 5 (Ark. App. 2014) (affirmed termination where parent persistently denied danger posed by domestic-violence context)