Garrett v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
499 S.W.3d 659
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- K.C. (b. Aug. 25, 2010) was removed from Patricia Garrett’s custody in July 2014; child adjudicated dependent-neglected and remained in foster care.
- Garrett had a history of major depression, personality problems, and substance abuse (including methamphetamine); initial drug tests were positive and she repeatedly refused DHS-administered drug screens.
- DHS required psychological evaluation, drug treatment, counseling, parenting classes, and medication management; Garrett completed some services but began intensive outpatient treatment only after the termination petition was filed (July 9, 2015).
- Experts (forensic psychologist and therapists) testified Garrett needed at least 6–12 more months of sustained sobriety, medication compliance, and therapy before safe reunification; child’s counselor and DHS noted improved child behavior in stable foster care and risks if returned prematurely.
- Trial court found statutory grounds for termination (continued out of custody 12 months with unremedied conditions; subsequent issues making placement contrary to child’s welfare) and that termination was in child’s best interest due to adoption prospects and safety concerns.
- Garrett appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and that DHS failed to provide a reasonable ADA accommodation (more time to complete services); appellate court affirmed and declined to reach the ADA claim because it was not preserved below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds supported termination | Garrett argued she was making progress and needed more time to complete treatment before termination | DHS argued Garrett had been out of custody 12+ months, failed to complete key services timely, and exhibited incapacity/indifference | Court affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supported statutory grounds (need show only one) |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interest | Garrett argued continued efforts and progress favored delaying termination | DHS and experts argued child needed permanency; adoption likely and return posed safety/behavioral risks | Court affirmed: best-interest finding supported by adoption prospects and potential harm if returned |
| Whether DHS violated ADA by failing to provide accommodation (more time) | Garrett requested more time as an ADA accommodation due to disabilities affecting pace of compliance | DHS contended services and time provided were appropriate; no ruling below on ADA request | Court did not reach merits—claim not preserved on appeal |
| Whether refusal of DHS drug screens could be treated as positive and weighed against reunification | Garrett disputed testing issues and reliance on non-DHS tests | DHS treated refusals as positive, cited missed/late testing and delays in treatment | Court upheld trial court’s reliance on testing history and refusals as part of the termination basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Harbin v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 451 S.W.3d 231 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (standard and purpose of termination statute; child’s need for permanency may override request for more time)
- Basham v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 490 S.W.3d 330 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (termination must be based on findings proved by clear and convincing evidence)
- Vail v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 486 S.W.3d 229 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (only one statutory ground needed to terminate)
- Villanueva v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 439 S.W.3d 65 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (late, eleventh-hour compliance insufficient when child’s need for stability outweighs delay)
- Woodall v. State, 376 S.W.3d 408 (Ark. 2011) (issues not raised and ruled on below are not preserved for appeal)