Hughes v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 554
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In May 2015 DHS removed three young children (born 2009, 2011, 2012) after a SWAT search of Annette Hughes’s home found methamphetamine, cocaine, marijuana, prescription pills, and firearms within reach of the children; one child tested positive for methamphetamine and cocaine. Hughes had prior DHS involvement, including a prior involuntary termination.
- The children were adjudicated dependent-neglected in July 2015; reunification services and requirements (drug screens, psychological evaluation, parenting classes, stable housing/income) were ordered.
- Hughes was convicted on drug and firearms charges and incarcerated; she was released in November 2016 and remained on parole. She attempted to secure housing and employment but had unstable housing/income and limited transportation.
- DHS and the attorney ad litem pursued termination; an adoption specialist identified numerous adoptive matches for the sibling group and testified the children were likely adoptable.
- The trial court terminated Hughes’s parental rights (finding statutory grounds undisputed on appeal) and concluded, by clear and convincing evidence, termination was in the children’s best interest because of adoptability and the potential for future harm / lack of parental stability. Hughes appealed only the best-interest finding.
Issues
| Issue | Hughes’s Argument | DHS/Ad Litem’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court considered adoptability of ZB | Trial court failed to find ZB adoptable in the written order; reversal required | Bench ruling and adoption-specialist testimony show court considered adoptability; adoptability need not be proved | Court affirmed: bench findings and record show the court considered adoptability; no reversal for form-over-substance |
| Whether there was clear-and-convincing evidence of potential harm if children returned | Hughes: she made progress after services and was not a "toxic" influence by hearing | DHS: past conduct (drug sales, firearms, incarceration), instability, and trauma to children predict future harm; lack of permanent home harms children | Court affirmed: potential harm may be inferred from past behavior and ongoing instability; best-interest finding supported |
| Whether best-interest finding required explicit adoptability finding for each child | Hughes: written order lacked explicit adoptability finding for ZB | DHS: adoptability is a factor, not an essential element; sufficiency shown by adoption specialist | Court affirmed: adoptability is a factor to consider, not an essential element; the record reflects consideration |
| Whether factual findings were clearly erroneous given de novo review standard | Hughes: bench findings insufficient/unsupported | DHS: credibility and weight of evidence support findings; trial court entitled to deference on credibility | Court affirmed: reviewing court not left with firm conviction a mistake was made; findings stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 430 S.W.3d 851 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013) (de novo review and standards for termination appeals)
- Singleton v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 468 S.W.3d 809 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (adoptability is a factor to consider, not an essential element)
- Martin v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 515 S.W.3d 599 (Ark. 2017) (testimony from adoption specialist or caseworker can establish adoptability)
- Vail v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 486 S.W.3d 229 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (potential harm is forward-looking and includes harm from lack of stability)
- Miller v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 492 S.W.3d 113 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (court must consider likelihood of adoption when making best-interest finding)