Heath v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2019 Ark. App. 255
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- DHS took emergency custody of H.H. (b. 3/15/2016) on 9/5/2017 for domestic violence in the child’s presence, parental drug use, inadequate supervision, and parental unfitness; both parents lived in the home.
- Circuit court adjudicated H.H. dependent-neglected on stipulation (10/10/2017) and set reunification as the primary goal with adoption concurrent; court ordered services and requirements for Will (psych eval, counseling, drug screens and treatment, AA/NA, stable housing/employment, child support, cooperation with DHS).
- Will was repeatedly incarcerated, had limited visitation, partial compliance with the case plan, a suicide attempt and mental-health diagnosis, and had not provided financial support; he later entered a six-month residential drug-rehab program (the Zoo) and claimed sobriety since January but had not visited the child since March 2018.
- DHS changed the permanency goal to adoption (8/21/2018) and filed to terminate parental rights; maternal grandmother, Lisa Tew, was the current foster placement and expressed willingness to adopt.
- At the termination hearing, the circuit court found grounds under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a)–(ii)(a) (failure to remedy and failure to provide material support/maintain meaningful contact) and concluded termination was in H.H.’s best interest due to adoptability and potential harm from return to Will.
- Will appealed only the best-interest determination; he did not challenge the sufficiency of the statutory grounds or adoptability finding on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Will) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in child’s best interest | Termination not in H.H.’s best interest; requested more time citing sobriety, rehab progress, and potential for placement with maternal grandmother | Termination favored stability and adoptability; returning child to Will posed potential harm and permanency was needed | Affirmed: court’s best-interest finding upheld; termination appropriate given adoptability and risk of harm |
| Whether statutory grounds were proven | Did not challenge statutory grounds on appeal | Court found clear-and-convincing evidence of failure to remedy and failure to support/maintain contact | Will abandoned challenge; trial court’s findings stand |
| Whether continued placement with maternal grandmother made termination unnecessary (Cranford argument) | Argued Cranford requires reversal where child’s stable placement with grandparents would persist regardless of termination | DHS: H.H. remains in DHS custody and grandmother is only a placement option; grandmother’s position may change because mother’s rights were terminated | Cranford distinguished: grandmother is not a permanent custodial parent here; stability via guardianship not established |
| Standard of review and burden of proof | N/A — framed within appellate review | Appellate review is de novo for termination; findings require clear and convincing evidence; factual findings reviewed for clear error | Applied de novo and clear-and-convincing standards; no clear error found |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 567 S.W.3d 870 (Ark. Ct. App.) (termination-of-parental-rights cases reviewed de novo; best-interest requirement)
- McGaugh v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 505 S.W.3d 227 (Ark. Ct. App.) (clear-error standard where burden is clear and convincing evidence)
- Cranford v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 851 (Ark. Ct. App.) (reversal where termination did not increase child’s stability because grandparents provided permanent custody)
- Scrivner v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 497 S.W.3d 206 (Ark. Ct. App.) (distinguishes children being in grandparents’ custody from grandparents merely being a placement option)
- Isbell v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 573 S.W.3d 19 (Ark. Ct. App.) (failure to raise an issue on appeal constitutes abandonment of that challenge)