Hill v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2012 Ark. App. 108
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- DHS obtained a 72-hour hold on T.H. after Hill’s arrest on probation violation in Oklahoma (Dec 10, 2009).
- DHS filed emergency custody (Dec 14, 2009) and the adjudication found T.H. dependent-neglected (Feb 17, 2010).
- Initial goal: reunification; Hill ordered to complete programs and resolve criminal issues; Hill incarcerated in Oklahoma thereafter.
- Permanency hearings (Jul 8, 2010; Dec 16, 2010) repeatedly found Hill incarcerated, leading to a goal of termination and adoption; termination hearing set for May 2011.
- Hearing date delayed multiple times; Hill remained incarcerated; May 20, 2011 termination hearing held with DHS seeking termination under statutory ground for substantial period of the juvenile life.
- Trial court found termination in T.H.’s best interest; T.H. had been in DHS custody about 42% of her life; Hill potentially would be out of custody for a lesser period, affecting permanency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 90-day hearing deadline deprived jurisdiction | Hill argues dismissal due to failure to hold hearing within 90 days | DHS contends noncompliance is non-jurisdictional and harmless | Non-jurisdictional; no prejudice shown; denial of motion affirmed |
| Whether the evidence supports termination under a statutory ground | Hill contends 3 years is not a substantial period of the juvenile’s life | Hill’s incarceration for three years substantial relative to T.H.’s life | Three years constitutes a substantial period; termination sustained on ground |
| Whether termination is in T.H.’s best interests | Hill argues DHS failed to show potential harm or adverse effects of termination | Evidence showed adoptability and risk of harm if returned to Hill; potential harm from keeping Hill’s custody | Factual findings supported best-interests determination; adoption likely; harm anticipated if returned |
Key Cases Cited
- Wade v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 337 Ark. 353 (1999) (time deadlines non-jurisdictional; statutory compliance not jurisdictional)
- Daniels v. State, 333 Ark. 620 (1998) (penal/statutory timeframes not inherently jurisdictional)
- Hattison v. State, 324 Ark. 317 (1996) (interpretation of timing provisions)
- Cook v. State, 274 Ark. 244 (1981) (statutory timing and jurisdictional concerns)
- Lee v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 102 Ark. App. 337 (2008) (potential-harm analysis in best-interest determinations)
- Pine v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 781 (2010) (broad potential-harm framework for best interests)
- Meriweather v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 98 Ark. App. 328 (2007) (standard of review for termination findings)