Hall v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2012 Ark. App. 245
Ark. Ct. App.2012Background
- DHS took emergency custody of R.H. on November 10, 2009 after his mother’s home was raided for drug activity; Roger Hall lived in California with his parents.
- R.H. is autistic and has been in DHS custody since removal.
- The trial court initially aimed for reunification with Ms. Hall, with Mr. Hall required to obtain stable housing, employment, income, and transportation; Ms. Hall faced similar requirements.
- DHS petitioned to terminate parental rights on February 8, 2011, and the court shifted to termination and adoption on February 11, 2011.
- At the termination hearing, the court found three statutory grounds support termination and found it was in R.H.’s best interest by clear and convincing evidence.
- The trial court ultimately terminated both parents’ rights on September 20, 2011; the juvenile’s best-interest finding and the statutory grounds were affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in R.H.’s best interest | Hall argues best interest was not proven | DHS argues substantial evidence supports best interest | Yes; termination in best interest was proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported the statutory grounds | Hall contends grounds were not proven | DHS asserts grounds were supported by the record | Yes; three grounds supported termination (b)(3)(B)(i), (vii)(a), (ix)(a) |
| Preservation/ICWA issue | Hall argued DHS failed to investigate potential Indian heritage | State argues issue unpreserved and ICWA not applicable to R.H. | Issue not preserved; ICWA not applicable to R.H. |
| Stability and housing as a factor | Hall lacked stability but argues home could be suitable | DHS showed lack of stable housing and income | Court did not err; lack of stability supported termination |
| Telephone visitation and communication with R.H. | Visitation could aid rehabilitation | Visitation was inconsistent and sometimes inappropriate | Terminating rights upheld despite visitation concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (2001) (clear and convincing evidence standard in termination cases)
- M.T. v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 58 Ark.App. 302, 952 S.W.2d 177 (1997) (clear and convincing evidence required; best interest standard)
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (1997) (de novo review of termination decisions; clearly erroneous standard)
- Anderson v. Douglas, 310 Ark. 633, 839 S.W.2d 196 (1992) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Davis v. State, 291 S.W.3d 164 (2009) (preservation and development of arguments on appeal)