Furnish v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
529 S.W.3d 684
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- DHS removed four children from Natasha Furnish after she tested positive for illegal drugs; the children were adjudicated dependent-neglected based on parental drug use.
- Court-ordered reunification services required Furnish to remain drug free, submit to random drug tests, complete drug-and-alcohol and psychological assessments, attend parenting classes, obtain stable housing and employment, and provide a budget.
- Furnish missed assessments, failed or failed-to-submit to drug screens, left a 120-day inpatient program after 12 days, and gave birth during the case to a child who tested positive for opiates at birth.
- DHS filed to terminate Furnish’s parental rights less than one year after removal, alleging subsequent-other-factors: ongoing noncompliance with the case plan, sporadic visitation, and continued substance use during the proceedings and pregnancy.
- The trial court found clear-and-convincing evidence of the statutory ground (subsequent-other-factors) and that termination was in the children’s best interests (children adoptable and risk of harm if returned); Furnish appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Furnish's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory ground (subsequent-other-factors) was proven | Furnish argued the court relied improperly on pre-removal conduct and ignored recent progress | DHS argued Furnish’s post-filing noncompliance (missed services, failed/no drug screens, birth of drug-exposed infant, sporadic visitation) established the subsequent factors | Court held DHS proved subsequent-other-factors by clear and convincing evidence (noncompliance and drug use during pendency supported ground) |
| Whether trial court improperly discounted Furnish’s recent progress | Furnish argued recent enrollment in longer rehab and counseling should weigh against termination | DHS argued progress was belated and insufficient, and court considered it but found it too little, too late | Court held the trial court did consider recent progress (Prows complied with), but properly found it insufficient |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence of adoptability for best-interest analysis | Furnish argued adoptability evidence was minimal and insufficient for B.M. and C.M. | DHS cited caseworker testimony about each child’s adoptability and potential adoptive placements (foster family interest; out-of-state relative) | Court held adoptability need not be proven as an independent essential element; caseworker testimony and placement evidence were sufficient for consideration |
| Whether potential harm was proven to support best interest | Furnish argued termination was premature and relatives could provide placement; more time was needed to treat addiction | DHS argued continuing drug use and instability posed potential harm and lack of permanency | Court held potential harm need not be proven as actual harm; Furnish’s ongoing drug use and instability supported potential-harm finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Posey v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 370 Ark. 500, 262 S.W.3d 159 (defines clear-and-convincing standard)
- Cotton v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2012 Ark. App. 455, 422 S.W.3d 130 (case-plan noncompliance supports subsequent-other-factors ground)
- Prows v. Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services, 102 Ark. App. 205, 283 S.W.3d 637 (trial courts must consider recent improvements in best-interest analysis)
- Renfro v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2011 Ark. App. 419, 385 S.W.3d 285 (adoptability is one factor in best-interest inquiry)
- Grant v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2010 Ark. App. 636, 378 S.W.3d 227 (insufficient adoptability proof where only generalized testimony offered)
- Reid v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2011 Ark. 187, 380 S.W.3d 918 (potential harm need not be actual or specifically identified)
- Martin v. State, 2017 Ark. 115, 515 S.W.3d 599 (stability and permanency considered in potential-harm analysis)
- Howell v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2017 Ark. App. 154, 517 S.W.3d 431 (parent’s continued illegal drug use supports risk of harm)