Hunter v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2016 Ark. App. 95
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- R.H., born 11/03/2013, tested positive for THC at birth; DHS opened a protective-services case and removed him after Hunter’s March 2014 arrest and positive drug tests.
- R.H. was adjudicated dependent-neglected due to Hunter’s drug use and criminal activity; reunification was the initial goal with supervised visitation ordered.
- Over the next year Hunter repeatedly failed to complete required treatment, maintain contact with DHS, or visit R.H.; she continued using illegal drugs and was incarcerated multiple times.
- DHS changed the permanency goal to termination and filed a petition alleging three statutory grounds for termination and that termination was in R.H.’s best interest.
- At the July 2015 termination hearing DHS presented testimony about Hunter’s ongoing substance abuse, failure to comply with the case plan, and the child’s adoptability; Hunter conceded she remained drug dependent and was incarcerated but asserted willingness to enter treatment.
- The Izard County Circuit Court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate Hunter’s parental rights on all alleged grounds and that termination served R.H.’s best interest; Hunter appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Hunter) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory 12‑month ground for termination (parent failed to remedy conditions) was proved | R.H. was out of Hunter’s custody >12 months; DHS made meaningful efforts; Hunter’s drug use and criminal behavior remained unremedied | Hunter asserted she was now willing to seek inpatient treatment and asked for time or placement with grandfather | Court held this ground proved by clear and convincing evidence and supported termination |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interest | Continued exposure to Hunter risks health/safety given unresolved substance abuse, incarceration, lack of stability, and child’s adoptability | Hunter argued she had changed and sought temporary placement with grandfather while she completed treatment | Court held termination was in R.H.’s best interest due to potential harm and availability of adoptive placement |
| Whether evidence overall was sufficient (clear and convincing standard) | Testimony and admissions showed persistent drug use, noncompliance with case plan, limited visitation, and failed rehabilitation efforts | Hunter pointed to asserted willingness to enter treatment and past completion of some services | Court found evidence met clear and convincing standard; appellate court gave deference to trial court credibility findings |
| Whether appellate counsel properly filed a no‑merit brief and could withdraw | DHS urged affirmance based on record; appellate counsel asserted no meritorious appeal exists | Hunter filed no pro se points after notice; she argued for continued reunification at trial but raised no appellate points | Court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, found the appeal without merit, and affirmed termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (clarifies clear-and-convincing standard and appellate review for termination orders)
- Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (procedural guidance for no-merit brief and counsel withdrawal)
- Lee v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 102 Ark. App. 337, 285 S.W.3d 277 (only one statutory ground required to support termination)
- Carroll v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 85 Ark. App. 255, 148 S.W.3d 780 (continued parental drug use can demonstrate indifference contrary to children’s health and safety)