Hamilton v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2016 Ark. App. 420
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- DHS removed three children (K.J., b.2011; B.H.1, b.2013; B.H.2, b.2014) in April 2014 after mother Sabrina Hamilton tested positive for methamphetamine/amphetamines/cannabinoids and exhibited erratic/hostile behavior; emergency custody and dependency-neglect proceedings followed.
- Court-ordered case plan required Hamilton to complete counseling, parenting classes, regular/random drug testing, inpatient treatment if recommended, and to obtain stable housing and employment; children were placed in foster care (one with maternal grandmother briefly but later removed).
- Over the next year Hamilton made partial progress (employment, parenting classes, counseling, negative hair tests) but repeatedly missed drug screens, violated orders (unsupervised contact), missed visits, and failed to complete recommended inpatient treatment or otherwise fully comply with the plan.
- The permanency goal was changed from reunification to adoption in Feb. 2015; DHS filed to terminate parental rights in Oct. 2015 on three statutory grounds including failure to remedy conditions that caused removal and subsequent factors making return contrary to welfare.
- At the Jan. 2016 termination hearing the court found by clear and convincing evidence that returning the children to Hamilton would pose potential harm (noting K.J.’s anxiety and regression after visits), that Hamilton had not remedied the conditions causing removal, and that termination was in the children’s best interest. The court terminated Hamilton’s parental rights; she appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hamilton) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether returning the children to Hamilton would create potential harm | Hamilton: children do not have ongoing special needs tied to her; K.J.’s trauma stemmed from contact with father (Jackson); mother has not used drugs since Aug 2014 and had negative hair tests | DHS: Hamilton missed most drug screens, failed to comply with orders, lacked stable independent housing, and professionals testified K.J. shows anxiety and somatic symptoms after visits with mother | Court: Affirmed — potential harm finding not clearly erroneous |
| Whether DHS proved statutory grounds for termination (failure to remedy conditions causing removal) | Hamilton: initial removal due to drug use but no current evidence of active drug problem and she retained custody of a newborn | DHS: Mother failed to comply with case plan (missed drug screens, missed visits, incomplete treatment) so root causes not remedied | Court: Affirmed — failure-to-remedy ground established |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interest (likelihood of adoption and welfare risk) | Hamilton: argued progress in some areas and that DHS did not therapeutically address K.J.’s needs; termination unnecessary | DHS: Children had stability and progress in foster care; continuing parental rights would harm children’s welfare | Court: Affirmed — termination in best interest based on adoption likelihood and potential harm |
| Whether any procedural or credibility errors warranted reversal | Hamilton: challenged weight/interpretation of evidence (drug tests, missed visits, causation of K.J.’s distress) | DHS: Trial court entitled to deference on credibility; evidence collectively satisfied clear-and-convincing standard | Court: Affirmed — credibility determinations for trial court; no clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- Harbin v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 451 S.W.3d 231 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (defines clear-and-convincing standard and de novo appellate review with deference to trial-court credibility findings)
- Dowdy v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 314 S.W.3d 722 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009) (past behavior may be considered as predictor of potential harm)
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 947 S.W.2d 761 (Ark. 1997) (parental rights should not continue to detriment of child’s welfare)
- Cotton v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 422 S.W.3d 130 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (noncompliance with case plan/court orders supports termination under subsequent-factors ground)