Garlington v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
542 S.W.3d 917
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- DHS opened a protective-services case (April 2015) after a true finding of inadequate supervision; family had housing instability and domestic-abuse issues.
- Children were removed in July 2015 after Garlington reported homelessness and refused further shelter placements; they were adjudicated dependent-neglected in September 2015 because the mother lacked appropriate housing.
- Case plan required stable housing, employment, counseling, and contact with DHS; reunification was initial goal but changed to adoption by July 2016 after ongoing noncompliance.
- DHS filed to terminate parental rights alleging (among other grounds) the 12‑month failure-to-remedy statutory ground based on continued lack of safe, stable housing.
- After hearings in March and May 2017, the court granted termination solely on the 12‑month failure-to-remedy ground; other alleged grounds were dismissed or rejected.
- The court found Garlington had over 22 months to remedy housing, made only late/insufficient progress, DHS had offered housing help, and termination was in the children’s best interest; Garlington appealed only the statutory‑grounds finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved the 12‑month failure‑to‑remedy ground under Ark. Code § 9‑27‑341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a) | Garlington: DHS failed to make meaningful efforts to rehabilitate her and she began improving late; dismissal required. | DHS: Children were out >12 months; Garlington failed to remedy the housing condition despite DHS assistance over >22 months. | Held for DHS: circuit court’s finding that Garlington failed to remedy the causes of removal despite meaningful efforts was not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether DHS made "meaningful efforts" to rehabilitate | Garlington: DHS could have done more to help secure housing; therefore statutory element unmet. | DHS: offered deposit/first month’s rent and other assistance; court weighed assistance sufficient for factual finding. | Held for DHS: court credited DHS efforts and Garlington’s inconsistent compliance; no clear error. |
| Whether late or last‑minute compliance defeats termination | Garlington: recent improvements showed potential for reunification. | DHS: eleventh‑hour or insufficient improvements do not negate long period of noncompliance and risk to children. | Held for DHS: court rejected last‑minute improvements as insufficient given long history of instability. |
| Whether Garlington’s absence at second hearing affected analysis | Garlington: (implied) attendance or emotional absence shouldn't determine statutory elements. | DHS: absence relevant to weighing her efforts and credibility. | Held for DHS: court permissibly weighed her failure to appear against her efforts; not reversible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dade v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 503 S.W.3d 96 (Ark. Ct. App.) (standard of review for termination appeals)
- Fox v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 448 S.W.3d 735 (Ark. Ct. App.) (termination is extreme remedy; heavy burden on DHS)
- T.J. v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 947 S.W.2d 761 (Ark. 1997) (two‑step requirement: statutory ground then best interest)
- Smith v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 431 S.W.3d 364 (Ark. Ct. App.) (same two‑step framework in termination cases)
- Trout v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 146 S.W.3d 895 (Ark. Ct. App.) (stability over time may justify termination despite attempts to comply)
- Camarillo‑Cox v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 201 S.W.3d 391 (Ark.) ("eleventh‑hour" improvements insufficient to avoid termination)
- Beck v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 528 S.W.3d 869 (Ark. Ct. App.) (courts may discount late compliance)
- Edwards v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 379 S.W.3d 609 (Ark. Ct. App.) (appellate deference to trial court findings when weighing DHS efforts)
- Madison v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 428 S.W.3d 555 (Ark. Ct. App.) (court’s factfinding on credibility and weight of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal)