Hernandez v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2016 Ark. App. 250
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- DHS removed two daughters (born 2009 and 2011) after prior protective-services involvement revealed physical injuries, allegations of sexual abuse, poor hygiene and supervision, locking the children in a room, and multiple inappropriate adults living in the home.
- Ex parte emergency custody and a dependency-neglect adjudication were entered; reunification and adoption were concurrent goals and Christine was given a case plan (psych eval, counseling, parenting classes, drug testing, supervised visits, stable housing, etc.).
- Christine completed many services and visits but the trial court found she had not shown an ability to protect her children or remedy the conditions that caused removal; DHS changed the goal to adoption and filed to terminate parental rights.
- Evidence at the termination hearing included psychological evaluations diagnosing personality disorders for both parents, testimony that the stepfather used fear-based parenting that increased the children’s PTSD symptoms, and foster-parent testimony that the children had improved in care and exhibited fear after visits with parents.
- Trial court found DHS made meaningful reunification efforts, Christine remained unable to protect the children (failure-to-remedy), and termination was in the children’s best interest; the court terminated Christine’s parental rights and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for failure-to-remedy (Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a)) | Christine: she removed inappropriate caregivers, complied with case plan, and thus remedied conditions. | DHS/Trial court: despite services, Christine remained unfit — passive, poor judgment, tolerated unsafe people, denied harm. | Affirmed — clear-and-convincing evidence she failed to remedy conditions. |
| Whether DHS made meaningful efforts to reunify | Christine: DHS should have provided family counseling; efforts were insufficient. | DHS: provided extensive services (therapy, psych evals, parenting classes, supervised visitation, therapies for children, etc.). | Affirmed — trial court correctly found DHS made meaningful efforts. |
| Best-interest determination for termination (likelihood of adoption; potential harm if returned) | Christine: she bonded with children, completed plan, posed no danger; court’s view speculative. | DHS/Trial court: children improved in foster care; risk of renewed physical/sexual/emotional harm and harm from fear-based parenting; parent credibility undermined. | Affirmed — termination found in children’s best interest based on forward-looking potential-harm analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wade v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 337 Ark. 353 (1999) (standard of review in termination appeals; clear-error standard and de novo aspects)
- Johnson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 78 Ark. App. 112 (2002) (trial-court credibility and observations in child-welfare cases accorded great weight)
- Osbourne v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 98 Ark. App. 129 (2007) (appellate deference to trial court’s credibility determinations)
- Hamman v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 435 S.W.3d 495 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (potential-harm inquiry in best-interest analysis is forward-looking and broad)
- Ford v. Ark. Dep’t Human Servs., 434 S.W.3d 378 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (parent’s past behavior as predictor of future behavior in termination context)