Humbert v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
460 S.W.3d 316
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- DHS removed two sons (ages 7 and 6) after reports that the mother used methamphetamine and crack in the children’s presence and the father allegedly bought drugs for her; mother tested positive and father initially refused a drug screen.
- Children were placed with father in November 2013 after adjudication as dependent-neglected; court ordered all mother visits to be supervised.
- In January 2014 DHS again took emergency custody after finding the mother visiting unsupervised at the father’s apartment; children reported daily contact with mother and that father told them not to disclose visits.
- Father lost his job in May 2014 after a positive hair-follicle methamphetamine test, missed multiple DHS-ordered drug screens, was homeless and unstable, and had continued association with the mother.
- DHS changed goal to termination and filed to terminate parental rights; the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children’s best interest and that an ‘‘other factors’’ statutory ground (post-petition factors showing placement with father would be contrary to children’s health, safety, or welfare and father manifested indifference) was met.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Humbert) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the children’s best interest | Humbert: He had largely complied with the plan, had prior stability with children, and needed more time after one failed drug test that cost him his job | DHS: Father remained homeless, unemployed, missed multiple drug screens, exposed children to mother in violation of orders, and children were adoptable | Court: Affirmed—trial court did not clearly err; risk of harm and children’s need for permanency outweighed giving more time |
| Whether statutory ground (post-petition "other factors" showing custody contrary to health/safety and parental indifference) was proved | Humbert: Disputes indifference; argues he was trying to remedy circumstances and working toward stability | DHS: Post-petition issues (drug use/positive test, missed screens, violation of supervised-visit order, homelessness) show father manifested indifference and remedial efforts insufficient | Court: Affirmed—evidence supported finding that post-petition factors made return contrary to children’s welfare and father manifested indifference |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Douglas, 310 Ark. 633, 839 S.W.2d 196 (clarifies definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- J.T. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (appellate standard for reviewing clear-and-convincing findings)
- M.T. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 58 Ark. App. 302, 952 S.W.2d 177 (statutory requirement that at least one ground and best-interest finding be proved by clear and convincing evidence)
- Benedict v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 96 Ark. App. 395, 242 S.W.3d 305 (law favors preservation of parent-child bonds when a positive relationship remains possible)
- Yarborough v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 96 Ark. App. 247, 240 S.W.3d 626 (definition of clear-error on review)
- Dozier v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 372 S.W.3d 849 (children’s need for permanency and stability can outweigh allowance of additional time for parent rehabilitation)