Haney v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 437
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parents Brooke Ann Haney and Wayne Norred had an open DCFS dependency-neglect case after their three-year-old child (A.N.1) drowned; two surviving children (R.N. and B.N.) were adjudicated dependent-neglected and not returned to the parents.
- At a July 2016 review hearing the court orally instructed that an expected infant (A.N.2) should be surrendered to Arkansas DCFS upon birth or when the mother could return to Arkansas; a written order memorializing that directive had not been entered before the birth.
- A.N.2 was born in Louisiana on August 25, 2016; Brooke notified her doctor and Louisiana OCS, which contacted Arkansas caseworker Bettye Farmer but could not reach Farmer before the mother and infant were discharged.
- Arkansas DHS sought, and the circuit court granted, ex parte emergency protective custody; Louisiana OCS transferred custody to Arkansas DCFS and the circuit court found probable cause to remove A.N.2, citing failure to notify DHS per the court’s instruction.
- At adjudication DHS argued A.N.2 should be adjudicated dependent-neglected because her siblings already were and because the parents’ "mindset" had not changed; the only DHS witness was the caseworker. The court adjudicated A.N.2 dependent-neglected.
- The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed, holding there was insufficient evidence that A.N.2 was at substantial risk of serious harm in her parents’ care and that the circuit court erred by relying essentially on the status of the older siblings and the parents’ alleged "mindset."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Haney/Norred) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.N.2 was "dependent-neglected" because she was at substantial risk of serious harm | Haney: DHS must prove present substantial risk; parents complied with services and attempted to notify authorities; they only were ordered to surrender upon return to Arkansas | DHS: Adjudication proper because siblings previously adjudicated and court had ordered surrender; parents failed to notify and their unchanged "mindset" creates risk | Reversed: DHS failed to prove substantial risk; adjudication based chiefly on siblings’ status and unexplained "mindset" finding was clearly erroneous |
| Whether prior adjudications of siblings alone justify adjudication of a new infant | Haney: Status of older children is insufficient without evidence of current risk to the infant | DHS: Prior adjudications and the court’s earlier removal plan justified finding risk to A.N.2 | Reversed: Court cannot rely solely on siblings’ status; must assess specific current risk to the child |
| Whether failure to promptly notify DHS (perceived noncompliance) supported removal/adjudication | Haney: She notified Louisiana OCS and provided Arkansas caseworker contact; believed she complied with the order to surrender upon return | DHS: Parents failed to notify as court ordered; this justified removal and probable cause | Court found evidence insufficient to show noncompliance that established substantial risk; removal/adjudication not supported |
| Whether parental "mindset" (belief about prior removals/death being an accident) can, by itself, establish substantial risk | Haney: Acknowledged mistakes and took responsibility; completed services and counseling | DHS: Parents’ unchanged attitude indicated lack of appreciation of risk and supported adjudication | Reversed: "Mindset" alone, without evidence showing how it created present substantial risk, is not a basis for adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- Maynard v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 389 S.W.3d 627 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011) (appellate court will defer to circuit court credibility determinations but does not overturn unless findings are clearly erroneous)