Hamman v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2014 Ark. App. 295
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Children (S.H., F.H., K.S.) were removed after reports of neglect and an incident where F.H. was found wandering with a soiled diaper; mother Jennifer was arrested for child endangerment; DHS filed emergency custody May 2012.
- Children were adjudicated dependent-neglected in July 2012 due to mother’s drug use and parental inability to care for children; initial goal was reunification.
- Parents had spotty compliance: Jennifer incarcerated much of the case (facing a long sentence); Edgar had intermittent contact, a true finding for sexual abuse against him required sex-offender registration.
- DHS changed goal to adoption in June 2013 and sought termination of parental rights in July 2013; termination hearing occurred August 16, 2013.
- Trial court found (by clear and convincing evidence) children were adoptable, continued parental incarceration/instability posed potential harm, DHS made meaningful efforts, and parents failed to remedy conditions or maintain meaningful contact; parental rights terminated September 6, 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Hamman (Appellants) Argument | DHS (Appellee) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in children’s best interest (adoptability + potential harm) | Termination based largely on incarceration; insufficient proof children are adoptable; parents would be released soon and could care for children; grandmother available | Caseworker testimony showed younger children adoptable; parents’ incarceration/instability would keep children in limbo and risk harm from delay | Affirmed: court’s best-interest finding not clearly erroneous; adoptability and potential harm supported termination |
| Adoptability of the children | No testimony that race/age affect adoptability; insufficient evidence | Caseworker testified younger children “very adoptable”; potential homes existed for S.H. and F.H.; K.S. adoptable when stabilized | Court permissibly relied on caseworker testimony; adoptability factor satisfied (need not be proven by clear and convincing evidence) |
| Potential harm from return to parents | No proof of specific harm; incarceration alone insufficient; grandmother offered custody | Delay pending parents’ release would prolong instability; parents lacked demonstrated stability or completed case plan; grandmother not vetted | Potential harm analysis satisfied: broad inquiry showed harm from prolonged uncertainty/instability; termination proper |
| Statutory grounds (meaningful efforts / 12-month out-of-home / failure to remedy) | DHS failed to prove meaningful efforts and parents did not have chance to remedy while incarcerated; homelessness/incarceration should not be held against them | DHS made reasonable/meaningful efforts (unchallenged in prior orders); children were out of home >12 months; parents failed to remedy conditions or maintain meaningful contact | At least one statutory ground (12-month out-of-home plus failure to remedy despite meaningful efforts) proven by clear and convincing evidence; appellants waived challenge to reasonable-efforts findings and alternative arguments fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Camarillo-Cox v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 360 Ark. 340 (Ark. 2005) (parental-rights termination is an extreme remedy considered against child welfare)
- Cobbs v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 189 S.W.3d 487 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004) (caseworker testimony can support adoptability finding)
- McFarland v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 210 S.W.3d 143 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005) (adoptability is one factor in best-interest analysis)
- Pine v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 379 S.W.3d 703 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (potential-harm inquiry requires consideration of risks from continued contact or delay)
- Hoffman v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 380 S.W.3d 454 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (child’s need for permanency may override parental requests for more time)