Henson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2014 Ark. App. 225
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Parents Shannon Cooper-Henson and Douglas Henson previously lost custody of children S.H. and E.H. in 2010 for inadequate supervision and substance abuse; custody was returned in early 2012 after services were completed.
- In Feb. 2013 DHS removed the children again after reports of intoxicated supervision, theft, a meth pipe in the parents' vehicle, and criminal charges against both parents (including meth-related charges against Douglas).
- The circuit court entered an ex parte emergency custody order, adjudicated the children dependent-neglected, and issued a no-reunification-services finding without a Rule 54(b) certificate.
- DHS later petitioned to terminate parental rights, alleging aggravated circumstances (a prior judicial determination that reunification was unlikely) and other subsequent factors affecting the children’s welfare; the court found both grounds proved by clear and convincing evidence, found the children adoptable and termination in their best interest, and terminated both parents’ rights.
- On appeal Shannon argued insufficiency of evidence for aggravated circumstances given recent sobriety and efforts; Douglas argued lack of DHS efforts to assist him and that services could rehabilitate him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural bar to challenging aggravated-circumstances finding | Shannon/Douglas: unable to challenge now? (implied) | DHS: appellants should have appealed earlier no-reunification order | Court: No procedural bar — no Rule 54(b) language made no-reunification order non-final, so issue preserved for termination appeal |
| Whether evidence supports aggravated-circumstances finding for Shannon | Shannon: recent sobriety, work, treatment show likelihood reunification could succeed | DHS/Court: history of instability, late and short-lived compliance, credibility problems | Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence of aggravated circumstances; mother’s improvements were too recent and court doubted persistence |
| Whether evidence supports termination as to Douglas given alleged lack of DHS efforts | Douglas: DHS failed to assist; he is attempting rehabilitation and could parent after release | DHS/Court: Douglas was incarcerated, had inconsistent engagement with services, presented no proof he'd be a viable placement soon | Court: Affirmed — termination supported; Douglas not shown to be viable placement within reasonable time |
| Best interest / adoptability (threshold for termination) | Parents: challenged grounds only, not best interest | DHS: children adoptable; termination serves children’s welfare | Court: Found children adoptable and termination in their best interest (unchallenged on appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 364 Ark. 243, 217 S.W.3d 788 (2005) (procedural-default/appealability principle cited)
- Schubert v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 357 S.W.3d 458 (Ark. 2009) (Rule 6-9 and necessity of Rule 54(b) language for appealability of disposition/no-reunification orders)
- Camarillo-Cox v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 360 Ark. 340, 201 S.W.3d 391 (2005) (standard for clear and convincing evidence and review for parental-termination findings)
- Trout v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 359 Ark. 283, 197 S.W.3d 486 (2004) (upholding termination where parental change was too recent and history showed failure to comply)
- Dinkins v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (2001) (deference to trial court credibility findings in parental-rights cases)
- Albright v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 97 Ark. App. 277, 248 S.W.3d 498 (2007) (only one statutory ground required to support termination)