Hannah v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2013 Ark. App. 502
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- DHS removed two children (L.H., 4 months; A.H., 18 months) after medical exams showed multiple injuries to L.H., including facial bruising, a healing fractured rib, and fresh foot fractures; parents' explanation was rejected by medical staff.
- DHS obtained emergency custody, and the circuit court found probable cause and set adjudication, no-reunification, and permanency hearings.
- At adjudication, appellant Nicole Hannah sought to introduce Dr. David Buckley’s deposition; the court excluded it for inadequate notice and found his in-person testimony unavailable claims insufficient; Nicole’s continuance request was also denied.
- The court adjudicated L.H. dependent-neglected due to aggravated circumstances (extreme/repeated cruelty) and found both children at substantial risk; it entered a no-reunification order and changed the permanency goal to termination/adoption.
- At the termination hearing the court found clear-and-convincing evidence of aggravated circumstances, that termination was in the children’s best interests, and terminated Nicole’s parental rights; Nicole appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Nicole’s appellate arguments challenged adjudication-level rulings she failed to appeal earlier and are therefore not reviewable in the termination appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Dr. Buckley’s deposition | Deposition should be admitted; Buckley unavailable and opposing counsel had notice | Exclusion proper for lack of reasonable notice under Ark. R. Civ. P. and failure to show unavailability | Court of Appeals refused to review because exclusion was an adjudication-stage ruling not timely appealed; termination affirmed |
| Denial of continuance to secure Buckley’s live testimony | Continuance required so Buckley could testify in person | Trial court within discretion to deny continuance; hearing schedule and notice issues | Same as above — claim attacks adjudication ruling; not reviewable in termination appeal; affirmed |
| Termination based on findings of abuse/aggravated circumstances | Termination improper because adjudication rulings (e.g., evidence exclusion) tainted outcome | Grounds for termination were established; but appellate review barred on those adjudication issues not previously appealed | Termination affirmed because appellate challenge attacked unappealed adjudication findings; Court will not review them in termination appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Dowdy v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 314 S.W.3d 722 (2009) (challenges to adjudication findings must be raised on appeal from adjudication, not in termination appeal)
- Krass v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 306 S.W.3d 14 (2009) (court will not review adverse rulings from adjudication, review, or permanency-planning hearings in termination appeals)
- Lewis v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 217 S.W.3d 788 (2005) (same principle: appellate review of adjudication-level rulings must occur in adjudication appeal)