Hoffman v. Arkansas Department of Human Services & Minor Child
2010 Ark. App. 856
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- DHS obtained emergency custody of K.H. on February 9, 2009 based on drug use by both parents and a severely unclean home; Hoffman was incarcerated.
- A 2009-10 court process required Hoffman to complete programs, maintain housing and employment, abstain from alcohol and illegal drugs, and participate in weekly drug screening upon release.
- A January 2010 permanency order changed the case goal to termination due to minimal progress and continued incarceration; Hoffman was released in April 2010, with K.H. in DHS custody for about 14 months.
- At the termination hearing, Hoffman claimed to be pursuing housing, employment, and treatment, but admitted limited contact with DHS and no ongoing drug screens since release.
- The circuit court terminated both parents’ rights, found termination in K.H.’s best interest, and noted Hoffman’s prior drug history, limited time with K.H., and uncertain prospects for timely reunification.
- Hoffman appealed arguing the court should have granted more time for reunification; the mother consented to termination and did not appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by denying additional reunification time | Hoffman | DHS | No clear error; termination appropriate |
| Whether a statutory ground for termination was proven | Hoffman | DHS | Grounds existed under 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a) |
| Whether termination was in K.H.’s best interest | Hoffman | DHS | Affirmed; best interest supported |
| Whether incarceration forecloses timely reunification considerations | Hoffman | DHS | Court properly weighed permanence over reunification delay |
| Whether past conduct and lack of sustained sobriety support termination | Hoffman | DHS | Past behavior and instability supported termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Benedict v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 96 Ark. App. 395, 242 S.W.3d 305 (Ark. App. 2006) (progress must be substantial to override termination)
- Friend v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2009 Ark. App. 606, 344 S.W.3d 670 (Ark. App. 2009) (incarceration does not erase responsibility and must view full picture)
- Johnson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 763, 2010 WL 4523759 (Ark. App. 2010) (longstanding behavior as predictor of future capacity)
- Henderson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 191, 377 S.W.3d 362 (Ark. App. 2010) (permanency goals may override parental requests for more time)
- Dozier v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 17, 372 S.W.3d 849 (Ark. App. 2010) (court considers overall progress and likelihood of reunification)
- Wright v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 83 Ark. App. 1, 115 S.W.3d 332 (Ark. App. 2003) (parent’s efforts are weighed against ability to care for child)
- Smith v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 747, 379 S.W.3d 663 (Ark. App. 2010) (de novo standard; credibility given weight by trial court)