Guthrey v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 19
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In Dec. 2014 Guthrey’s four children were removed after a traffic-stop arrest in which drugs/paraphernalia were found and Guthrey tested positive for illegal drugs; the children were living with relatives who also failed drug testing.
- In Feb. 2015 the children were adjudicated dependent-neglected based on a stipulation of parental unfitness/neglect; case goal was reunification and Guthrey entered the court’s "Zero to Three" program.
- Over the next year Guthrey completed drug treatment and court-ordered services, maintained stable housing and employment, tested clean, exercised frequent visitation, and gave birth to a fifth child during the case.
- The circuit court repeatedly praised her progress but expressed concerns about her honesty and relationships with men, changed the permanency goal to termination/adoption, and later DHS and the attorney ad litem filed petitions to terminate parental rights.
- At the termination hearing the court found three statutory grounds (failure to remedy, subsequent factors, aggravated circumstances) and that termination was in the children’s best interest, primarily citing "poor judgment," romantic relationships, and evasiveness.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the evidence insufficient as a matter of law to support the statutory grounds or the best-interest finding.
Issues
| Issue | Guthrey's Argument | DHS/Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure-to-remedy ground under Ark. Code Ann. §9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a) was shown | The condition causing removal was drug use and related living with users; she fully remedied drug issues so statutory ground unsupported | Mother still exhibited "poor judgment" (relationships with inappropriate men, evasiveness) so conditions not remedied | Reversed — court erred in framing condition as vague "poor judgment"; insufficient evidence mother failed to remedy causes of removal |
| Whether "subsequent factors" existed rendering placement with mother contrary to child welfare | Pregnancy/new relationship did not demonstrate risk to children’s health, safety, or welfare | Pregnancy and new partner evidenced subsequent factors showing risk | Reversed — no evidence pregnancy or new partner made placement contrary to welfare |
| Whether aggravated circumstances existed (little likelihood services will reunify) | Guthrey diligently used services and successfully remedied substance-abuse issues | Pattern of poor judgment and dishonesty showed unlikely success of services | Reversed — insufficient evidence to find aggravated circumstances |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interest (risk on return) | Mother was sober, completed services, had stable housing/employment, and consistent visitation; caseworker supported reunification | Returning children would expose them to harm from mother’s poor judgment and relationships | Reversed — clear-and-convincing proof of risk lacking; best-interest finding unsupported |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (Ark. 2001) (standard for reviewing termination orders and dependency adjudications)
- Ullom v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 340 Ark. 615, 12 S.W.3d 204 (Ark. 2000) (reversal standard for termination of parental rights)
- Wade v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 337 Ark. 353, 990 S.W.2d 509 (Ark. 1999) (definition of clearly erroneous review standard)
- Knuckles v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 469 S.W.3d 377 (Ark. App. 2015) (de novo review statement in termination cases)
- Geren-Williams v. Geren, 458 S.W.3d 759 (Ark. App. 2015) (credibility findings must relate to material facts and cannot substitute for substantive evidence)