Greenhill v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 517 S.W.3d 473

In March 2015 Angela Greenhill brought her son D.N. to a hospital while impaired by prescription drugs; she repeatedly fell asleep and left D.N. unsupervised, was arrested, and DHS removed the child.
The circuit court adjudicated D.N. dependent-neglected for inadequate supervision and ordered a reunification plan requiring sobriety, counseling, parenting classes, drug testing, stable housing, income, and visitation.
Greenhill initially complied and had a trial placement, but later relapsed or otherwise became noncompliant: lost employment, missed counseling and drug treatment, tested positive for methamphetamine, hid domestic violence, and had a trial placement terminated due to deterioration in D.N.’s behavior.
DHS changed the permanency goal to adoption and filed to terminate Greenhill’s parental rights on three statutory grounds: twelve-months-failure-to-remedy, subsequent other factors, and aggravating circumstances (little likelihood services would result in reunification).
The trial court found clear-and-convincing evidence supporting all three statutory grounds, found D.N. adoptable, found potential harm if returned to Greenhill, and terminated parental rights; Greenhill appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination is supported by the 12-months-failure-to-remedy ground (Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a))	Greenhill contended she made sufficient efforts and had periods of compliance such that conditions were remedied	DHS argued D.N. was out of her custody >12 months, DHS made meaningful efforts, and Greenhill failed to remedy substance abuse and supervision problems	Court held DHS proved the 12-month failure-to-remedy ground; court not clearly erroneous in finding Greenhill failed to remedy conditions
Whether termination is in child’s best interest — adoptability	Greenhill argued evidence (caseworker descriptions) was insufficient to show likelihood of adoption	DHS presented caseworker testimony that D.N. benefitted from placements and no barriers to adoption were known	Court found sufficient evidence of adoptability based on caseworker testimony and placement history
Whether termination is in child’s best interest — potential harm on return	Greenhill argued lack of specific proof of potential harm if child returned	DHS pointed to ongoing substance issues, exposure to domestic violence, and deterioration of child’s behavior during her care	Court held there was ample evidence of likely potential harm (sobriety unproven, exposure to violence, prior placement termination) and termination was in D.N.’s best interest

Fox v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 448 S.W.3d 735 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (termination is an extreme remedy; heavy burden on party seeking termination)
Smithee v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 471 S.W.3d 227 (Ark. 2015) (parental rights not enforced to detriment of child’s health and well-being)
Anderson v. Douglas, 839 S.W.2d 196 (Ark. 1992) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
Dinkins v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 40 S.W.3d 286 (Ark. 2001) (de novo review with deference to credibility findings)
J.T. v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 947 S.W.2d 761 (Ark. 1997) (appellate review will not overturn clearly erroneous findings)
Reid v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 380 S.W.3d 918 (Ark. 2011) (only one statutory ground needed to support termination)
Pine v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 379 S.W.3d 703 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (best-interest factors: adoptability and potential harm)
Tucker v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 389 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011) (adoptability is a factor, not essential element)
Harbin v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 451 S.W.3d 231 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (past parental behavior may predict potential harm if child returned)