Gonzalez v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
555 S.W.3d 915
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- DHS opened dependency-neglect proceedings after 2016 findings of parental drug use and unsafe home conditions; children were adjudicated dependent-neglected in May 2016.
- Case plan required Gonzalez to remain drug free, complete services, and obtain stable housing, employment, and transportation; DHS provided drug treatment, case management, transportation assistance, and foster placements.
- Gonzalez intermittently complied (drug-free, completed some therapy) but lacked sustained housing, employment, and reliable transportation; a June 2017 trial home placement failed when she became homeless after a breakup.
- DHS filed to terminate parental rights in October 2017, alleging (1) the subsequent-factors ground and (2) aggravated circumstances; the circuit court found both grounds proved and termination in the children’s best interest.
- Gonzalez appealed, arguing DHS failed to provide appropriate services to remedy post-petition factors and that termination was not in the children’s best interest (challenging only the potential-harm prong).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved the subsequent-factors ground (Ark. Code) — i.e., that issues arose after the original petition and, despite appropriate services, parent manifested incapacity or indifference | Gonzalez: DHS failed to offer appropriate services to address the subsequent issues (e.g., furniture, housing), so this statutory element is unmet | DHS: It provided transportation, case management, referrals, visitation, and other supports; Gonzalez remained unstable and failed to comply with court orders | Court: Affirmed — services were sufficient and Gonzalez’s prolonged instability and last-minute compliance justified finding the ground proved |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interest—potential-harm prong | Gonzalez: Recent steps (housing, job, van) eliminate likely potential harm | DHS: Past instability, failed trial placement, and failure to comply with case plan predict future harm | Court: Affirmed — past behavior, failed placement, and noncompliance support a forward-looking finding of potential harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Dade v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 503 S.W.3d 96 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (standard of review and deference to trial court in TPR cases)
- Fox v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 448 S.W.3d 735 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (termination is an extreme remedy; DHS bears heavy burden)
- Brown v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 542 S.W.3d 899 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018) (failure to obtain stable housing and employment can support subsequent-factors ground)
- Garlington v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 542 S.W.3d 917 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018) (eleventh-hour improvements do not preclude termination)
- Camarillo-Cox v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 201 S.W.3d 391 (Ark. 2005) (late compliance insufficient when children’s need for permanency overrides last-minute changes)
- Tatum v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 536 S.W.3d 178 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (services provided may be adequate when parent fails to attain stable housing, employment, transportation)