Houseman v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2016 Ark. App. 227
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- ADHS filed for emergency custody and dependency-neglect after newborn A.M.1 tested positive for multiple illegal substances; mother Jennifer Houseman had a documented history of drug abuse and prior threats toward A.M.2.
- A.M.1 was removed from Houseman immediately; A.M.2 initially lived with paternal grandmother but was later removed when the grandmother’s home was found unsafe.
- The juveniles were adjudicated dependent-neglected in January 2014; multiple review hearings found Houseman noncompliant with the case plan and continuing substance use.
- ADHS sought termination of parental rights in August 2015, alleging three statutory grounds: (i) twelve months out of custody and failure to remedy conditions, (iv) abandonment, and (vii) subsequent factors preventing safe return.
- At the September 2015 termination hearing, evidence showed continued positive drug tests, months without visitation, unstable housing/employment, and a prospective adoptive placement; the court terminated Houseman’s rights to both children.
- Houseman’s appellate counsel filed a Rule 6-9(i) no-merit brief and motion to withdraw; counsel focused primarily on the failure-to-remedy ground for A.M.1 and omitted discussion of the subsequent-factors ground as to A.M.2. The Court of Appeals affirmed and granted counsel’s withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (ADHS) | Defendant's Argument (Houseman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for failure-to-remedy (A.M.1) | Houseman remained out of custody 12+ months and failed to remedy drug-related conditions despite services | Houseman sought more time, contended progress could be made with treatment | Court: Proven by clear and convincing evidence; supports termination |
| Sufficiency of evidence for abandonment (both children) | ADHS alleged abandonment based on lack of contact/visitation | Houseman disputed abandonment, cited reasons for missed visits and grandparent availability | Court: Termination on abandonment supported (court found abandonment proven) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for subsequent factors (A.M.2) | Subsequent issues (continued drug use, unstable housing/employment, father’s incarceration) made return contrary to welfare | Houseman argued insufficient evidence and requested more time; counsel contested this ground at trial | Court: Subsequent-factors ground proven by clear and convincing evidence for A.M.2; supports termination |
| Adequacy of no-merit brief / counsel withdrawal | ADHS urged affirmation based on record; procedural posture allows counsel to seek withdrawal if no meritorious appeal exists | Houseman’s counsel filed a no-merit brief but omitted addressing at least one adverse ground (subsequent factors as to A.M.2) | Court: Despite omission, appellate de novo review found no reversible error; granted counsel’s withdrawal and affirmed termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Linker-Flores v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (Ark. 2004) (describes Rule 6-9(i) no‑merit procedural requirements in termination appeals)
- Linker-Flores v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 364 Ark. 224, 217 S.W.3d 107 (Ark. 2005) (clarifies no‑merit brief content obligations and appellate review in termination cases)
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (Ark. 2001) (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings in termination cases)
- Sartin v. State, 2010 Ark. 16, 362 S.W.3d 877 (Ark. 2010) (distinguishes criminal no‑merit practice; explains de novo/clear‑error review in termination cases)
- Harbin v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2014 Ark. App. 715 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (outlines two‑step termination analysis: statutory grounds and best‑interest determination)