Holloway v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2015 Ark. App. 458
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Mother Jasmine Holloway has a prior DHS history (2010 referrals for inadequate supervision/threat of harm; foster-care case 2010–2012).
- Jan–Feb 2014 hotline reports: concerns about Holloway’s schizophrenia, medication noncompliance, and paranoia; child G.H. hospitalized in Feb 2014 with dystonic symptoms consistent with medication overdose.
- DHS placed G.H. on a 72-hour hold, then obtained emergency custody and a probable-cause order citing ongoing emergency conditions and family history.
- Three months later the circuit court adjudicated G.H. dependent-neglected, finding Holloway’s failure to supervise led to exposure to antipsychotic medication that could have caused death or permanent harm; the court found aggravated circumstances and set adoption as the permanency goal (adjudication order not appealed).
- DHS filed and the circuit court later granted a petition to terminate Holloway’s parental rights, relying on the prior aggravated-circumstances finding and evidence that G.H. is adoptable and would be harmed if returned to Holloway.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the adjudication finding of dependent-neglect/aggravated circumstances was erroneous | Holloway argued the court erred in finding dependency-neglect and aggravated circumstances | DHS relied on the adjudication findings and family history showing risk to the child | Not reached on merits: Holloway failed to appeal the adjudication; appellate review precluded (adjudication is appealable and must be challenged then) |
| Whether the aggravated-circumstances finding could support termination | Holloway contended the court erred in finding cruelty/aggravated circumstances as basis for termination | DHS relied on the unappealed adjudication that the child was exposed to antipsychotics creating a life-endangering situation and low likelihood of reunification | Not reached on merits for same reason; prior adjudication stands and supports termination order |
| Whether DHS “fast-tracked” termination by denying rehabilitative services/permanency planning | Holloway argued she was denied usual services and planning before termination | DHS pointed to statute allowing filing to terminate prior to a permanency-planning hearing | Not preserved for appeal (not raised below); court notes even on merit there is no statutory requirement to hold a permanency planning hearing before filing termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 387 S.W.3d 311 (Ark. Ct. App.) (failure to appeal adjudication precludes later challenge to aggravated-circumstances finding)
- Krass v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 306 S.W.3d 14 (Ark. Ct. App.) (same principle regarding preservation of challenge to aggravated-circumstances finding)
- Samuels v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 443 S.W.3d 599 (Ark. Ct. App.) (issues raised for first time on appeal will not be considered)
- Gilmore v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 379 S.W.3d 501 (Ark. Ct. App.) (statutory authority allows DHS to file a termination petition prior to a permanency-planning hearing)