Gutierrez v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2012 Ark. App. 575
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Gutierrez’s two sons were removed after Gutierrez’s arrest on drug offenses in July 2010, with DHS alleging danger due to drug activity in Gutierrez’s home.
- The children were adjudicated dependent-neglected on Sept. 7, 2010, with reunification as goal and case-plan services ordered.
- Gutierrez participated intermittently in services (visitation, counseling, random drug screens, housing/employment stability) but failed to complete key evaluations and drug-treatment steps, including a hair-follicle test.
- Gutierrez’s positive methamphetamine test in Sept. 2011 and delayed hair-follicle testing led DHS to adjust the case goal from reunification to adoption.
- DHS filed a joint petition for termination on Oct. 11, 2011; a termination hearing occurred Jan. 31, 2012, culminating in termination of Gutierrez’s parental rights under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a).
- The trial court found Gutierrez unfit and that termination was in the children’s best interests, noting the likelihood of adoption and history of noncompliance with the case plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grounds for termination supported by clear and convincing evidence? | Gutierrez argues her overall compliance was sufficient and the lapse was minor. | Gutierrez contends she remedied conditions and remained capable of parenthood. | No; evidence showed ongoing drug issues and noncompliance; grounds supported. |
| Best interests and adoptability support termination? | Gutierrez asserts potential for reunification and adoptive uncertainty. | DHS and caseworker testified children were adoptable and needed permanency. | Yes; children were likely to be adopted and termination in their best interests. |
| Effect of late compliance and timing (post-goal change) on termination decision? | Gutierrez claims improvements after goal change negate termination. | Record shows overall noncompliance and relapse; late compliance insufficient. | Court did not require prior perfect compliance; overall record supported termination. |
| Reliability of adoptability testimony and potential harms considered? | Gutierrez argues adoptability testimony was not by an adoption specialist. | Court properly weighed evidence of adoptability and potential harm in light of record. | Terminated based on best interests and likelihood of adoption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 83 Ark.App. 1, 115 S.W.3d 332 (Ark. 2003) (clear-and-convincing standard in termination cases; deference to trial judge’s observations)
- Anderson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 385 S.W.3d 373 (Ark. 2011) (de novo review; clear-and-convincing burden; welfare of young children weighs heavily)
- Cobbs v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 189 S.W.3d 487 (Ark. App. 2004) (great weight given to trial court’s credibility findings in child welfare cases)
- Renfro v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 385 S.W.3d 285 (Ark. App. 2011) (best-interests analysis requires considering multiple factors; not every factor must be clear and convincing)
- Welch v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 290 (Ark. App. 2010) (two-step termination analysis: unfitness and best interests; likelihood of adoption considered)