Goodwin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
445 S.W.3d 547
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Goodwin, 23, gave birth to M.G. in 2013; DHS held M.G. after Goodwin reported prior custody losses and instability.
- At adjudication, Goodwin testified she had four other children but no custody; Ohio had terminated rights to at least Ma.G.; another child X.G. had been involved with Arkansas and Ohio; longest prior custody was seven months.
- Goodwin testified of a six-year-old daughter with an Aunt, no contact for over a year, and a recent move to a two-bedroom apartment with her stepbrother; she was unemployed relying on food stamps.
- DHS worker testified she hadn’t visited the new apartment and no home study was conducted on the father Michael Lewis due to jail status.
- Goodwin stated she could care for M.G. with support from her Arkansas network (stepbrother, his wife, and M.G.’s father).
- The circuit court adjudicated M.G. dependent-neglected based on Goodwin’s admitted loss of other children, depression, and unstable housing and income; standard of review is de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the adjudication is supported by a preponderance of the evidence | Goodwin’s histories of losses and instability prove risk; evidence about other children shows neglect potential. | DHS failed to prove substantial risk or neglect with concrete evidence; some housing/support issues were not current or well-documented. | Not clearly against the preponderance; adjudication affirmed. |
| Whether reliance on Goodwin’s history with other children justifies removal | Past terminations indicate parental unfitness and risk to M.G. | Past terminations alone do not automatically establish present neglect; must prove current risk. | Adjudication upheld based on current history and risk factors. |
| Whether unstable housing/income alone supports neglect finding | Unstable housing and lack of employment show risk to M.G.’s well-being. | Some housing changes occurred; no evidence DHS offered services to address financial/housing needs. | Evidence supports dependency-neglect finding not clearly against the preponderance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maynard v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 82 ((Ark. Ct. App. 2011)) (substantial-risk standard for neglect)
- Seago v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 360 S.W.3d 733 ((Ark. Ct. App. 2009)) (focus on child in adjudication; not parent)
- Eason v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 423 S.W.3d 138 ((Ark. Ct. App. 2012)) (clear-error standard in dependency-neglect review)
- Moiser v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 233 S.W.3d 172 ((Ark. Ct. App. 2006)) (preponderance standard in dependency-neglect)
- Brewer v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 43 S.W.3d 196 ((Ark. Ct. App. 2001)) (distinguishable reliance on elder-sibling harm)