Greenhaw v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
495 S.W.3d 109
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- F.S., born 2004, was removed from Hope Greenhaw's custody on April 1, 2014, after school absences and a home welfare check revealing unsanitary conditions; mother reported untreated mental illness and refused drug screening.
- DHS filed dependency-neglect petitions; court adjudicated F.S. dependent-neglected on June 12, 2014, and ordered a reunification-oriented case plan (psych eval, counseling, parenting classes, drug screens, home access, visitation).
- Over the case: Greenhaw repeatedly refused or minimally complied with services (failed parenting classes, declined counseling, did not follow psychological recommendations, tested positive for methamphetamine, denied DHS access to her home, missed many visits, remained unemployed, had pending criminal charges).
- Permanency goal changed to adoption on July 7, 2015; DHS filed petitions to terminate parental rights under Ark. Code § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B) (various subsections).
- After an August 25, 2015 hearing, the circuit court terminated Greenhaw’s parental rights on November 1, 2015, finding clear-and-convincing evidence Greenhaw failed to remedy conditions that caused removal and that termination was in the child’s best interest.
- Appellate counsel filed a Linker-Flores no-merit brief and moved to withdraw; Greenhaw filed pro se points asserting changed circumstances (employment, housing, improved mental health). The appellate court affirmed and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supported termination under § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a) (failure to remedy conditions after 12+ months) | Greenhaw contended she had since improved (steady job, housing, mental-health improvement) and could comply with the case plan going forward | DHS/ad litem argued the evidence showed minimal compliance over the critical period, continued substance use, noncompliance with services, and inability to remedy conditions within a child-centered timeframe | Court held evidence was sufficient; Greenhaw failed to remedy conditions and termination was not clearly erroneous |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interest | Greenhaw argued changed circumstances meant reunification could occur | DHS/ad litem pointed to placement stability, high adoptability, and potential harm from returning to Greenhaw | Court found termination in F.S.’s best interest: likely adoption and potential harm from instability; termination affirmed |
| Whether counsel properly followed Linker-Flores in moving to withdraw on no-merit grounds | N/A (counsel asserted no arguable issues) | DHS/ad litem supported withdrawal after review | Court found counsel complied with Linker-Flores and Rule 6-9(i); motion to withdraw granted |
| Whether appellate court should reweigh evidence or revisit credibility tied to Greenhaw’s pro se claims of changed circumstances | Greenhaw urged reconsideration based on new facts (employment, housing, fiancé) | DHS/ad litem argued appeal challenged sufficiency and trial-court credibility determinations, which appellate court should not reweigh | Court refused to reweigh evidence or disturb credibility findings; pro se points did not change result |
Key Cases Cited
- Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131 (2004) (procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw on no-merit review in TPR appeals)
- Lewis v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 364 Ark. 243 (2005) (appellate scope in no-merit TPR appeals requires review of prior record and sufficiency of evidence)
- J.T. v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243 (1997) (standard of review: trial-court finding that fact was proven by clear and convincing evidence is reviewed for clear error)