Gwinup v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2014 Ark. App. 337
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- DHS opened a protective-services case October 2011 based on Gwinup's history and concerns that she could not properly care for or protect L.R.
- Approximately six months later, L.R. was removed from Gwinup’s custody after unsanitary living conditions and reports of inadequate supervision despite DHS resources.
- August 2012, the trial court adjudicated L.R. dependent-neglected, finding Gwinup incapable of providing a clean, sanitary, stable living arrangement and adequate supervision; Gwinup stipulated to the dependency-neglect finding.
- June 2013, DHS petitioned to terminate Gwinup’s parental rights, alleging (1) prior involuntary termination of another child and (2) twelve months out of custody with failure to remedy the conditions causing removal.
- October 2013, the trial court amended the order and terminated Gwinup’s parental rights, finding grounds proven and termination in L.R.’s best interests.
- Gwinup appeals arguing there was no current lack of parental capacity, no indifference to remedy, and no harm to L.R. if contact continued; court noted she had improvements but still found termination proper given her history and circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is termination in L.R.’s best interests supported by clear and convincing evidence? | Gwinup contends improvements negate best interests | DHS argues risk factors persist and adoption likelihood favors termination | Yes; best interests supported by clear and convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (2001) (termination standard; statutory grounds)
- Camarillo-Cox v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 360 Ark. 340, 201 S.W.3d 391 (2005) (clear and convincing standard defined)
- Smith v. Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 100 Ark. App. 74, 264 S.W.3d 559 (2007) (best-interest analysis includes potential adoption)
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (1997) (appellate review of trial court credibility)
- Lewis v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 364 Ark. 243, 217 S.W.3d 788 (2005) (prior improvements do not override failure to remedy)
- Welch v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 798, 378 S.W.3d 290 (2010) (potential harm viewed in forward-looking terms)
- Collins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2013 Ark. App. 90 (2013) (harm and adoptability considerations in best-interest analysis)
- Carroll v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 85 Ark. App. 255, 148 S.W.3d 780 (2004) (risk assessment for return to parent)