Hambrick v. Arkansas Department of Human Services & Minor Children
2016 Ark. App. 458
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- DHS filed an ex parte petition alleging that Phillip Hambrick sexually abused his three-year-old daughter A.H., placing his three daughters at substantial risk; an affidavit reported a forensic interview disclosure and similar conduct by an older daughter, G.H.
- Trial court entered a no-contact order and later held an adjudication hearing; parties stipulated the children were unavailable to testify under Ark. R. Evid. 804.
- Forensic interviews of A.H. (age 3) and G.H. (age 5) were played for the court; A.H.’s interview included statements that her father put his penis in her mouth and touched her vaginal area, though her answers were at times inconsistent and confusing.
- Daycare teacher testified A.H. and G.H. exhibited age-inappropriate sexualized behavior and A.H. reported her father had touched her; a sexual-assault examiner found an anal tear that could be consistent with abuse but was not definitive.
- Investigating officer (CACD) recorded a true finding of sexual contact and oral sex against Hambrick (subject to appeal); interviewer and therapist testified the children’s disclosures were credible and age-appropriate despite inconsistencies.
- The trial court admitted the children’s out-of-court statements under Ark. R. Evid. 804(b)(6), found the hearsay trustworthy and corroborated, and adjudicated the children dependent-neglected due to Hambrick’s sexual abuse of A.H.; Hambrick appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hambrick) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of child hearsay under Ark. R. Evid. 804(b)(6): whether A.H.’s statements had reasonable guarantees of trustworthiness | Statements were ambiguous, the interview was leading, and A.H. (age 3) was confused and inconsistent | Interviewer and witnesses testified inconsistencies are normal for a 3‑year‑old; statements corroborated by caregiver observations and medical findings | Court held trial court did not abuse discretion: statements sufficiently trustworthy and properly admitted |
| Sufficiency of evidence to adjudicate sexual abuse / dependent-neglected status | Evidence was not compelling; corroboration was weak; medical finding was equivocal; other testimony collateral | Multiple sources corroborated the disclosures (forensic interview, daycare observations, therapist, CACD finding, medical exam); trial court credited witnesses | Court affirmed adjudication — not clearly erroneous or against preponderance of evidence |
| Appropriateness of appellate deference to trial court credibility findings | Deference inappropriate because trial court only viewed forensic videos rather than live testimony, so appellate court is no less able to assess credibility | Standard of review is de novo with deference to trial court credibility findings; no authority supports limiting deference when testimony is via video | Court declined to create an exception; gave trial court credibility deference and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Callison v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 446 S.W.3d 210 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review and deference to trial-court credibility findings in DHS adjudications)
- Bowie v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 427 S.W.3d 728 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013) (court will not substitute its judgment for trial court on credibility)
- Stiger v. State Line Tire Service, 35 S.W.3d 335 (Ark. Ct. App. 2000) (permitting administrative bodies to make credibility determinations even without live testimony)