Furnish v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2017 Ark. App. 278
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- DHS removed four children after Furnish tested positive for amphetamines, methamphetamine, and benzodiazepine; a caregiver (McKinney) also tested positive. 72‑hour hold occurred Nov. 10, 2015.
- Dependency‑neglect petition was filed in Craighead County (Furnish’s residence); children adjudicated dependent‑neglected Dec. 11, 2015 due to Furnish’s drug use.
- Furnish only partially complied with the court‑ordered case plan at two subsequent review hearings.
- DHS filed to terminate parental rights on Sept. 9, 2016 (within one year of removal) alleging the "subsequent‑other‑factors" statutory ground for termination.
- Trial court terminated Furnish’s rights to B.M., A.M., and C.M., finding clear and convincing evidence of the statutory ground and that termination was in the children’s best interests (children adoptable; potential harm if returned).
- Furnish appealed, challenging sufficiency of evidence on statutory ground and both adoptability and potential‑harm prongs of the best‑interest finding; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved the "subsequent‑other‑factors" statutory ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence | Furnish contends evidence was insufficient to establish the statutory ground | DHS argued Furnish’s drug use, partial case‑plan compliance, and circumstances supported the statutory ground | Court held DHS met the clear‑and‑convincing burden; termination statutory ground proven |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests — adoptability prong | Furnish disputed that the children were adoptable or that adoptability supported termination | DHS and trial court found the children were adoptable | Court held children were adoptable, supporting termination |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests — potential‑harm prong | Furnish argued children would not be harmed if returned or that potential harm was speculative | DHS presented risk of harm from Furnish’s ongoing substance abuse and instability | Court held potential harm to the children if returned supported termination |
| Standard of appellate review for dependency‑neglect/termination findings | Furnish argued trial court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous | DHS relied on de novo review with deference to trial court credibility findings | Court applied de novo review but affirmed trial court; findings not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellis v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 505 S.W.3d 678 (Ark. 2016) (standard of review and deference to trial‑court credibility in dependency‑neglect matters)
- In re Memorandum Opinions, 700 S.W.2d 63 (Ark. Ct. App. 1985) (affirmance by memorandum opinion)