Ingle v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2014 Ark. 53
| Ark. | 2014Background
- DHS petitioned for emergency custody of C.N. after Ingle's arrest for possession of drug paraphernalia found at home.
- C.N. was placed with his biological father, Neal, under conditions limiting supervision and with reunification goals.
- Adjudication found C.N. dependent-neglected due to lack of a legal caretaker after Ingle's arrest; court ordered conditions, including Ingle's treatment and parent-education requirements.
- Six-month review (Nov. 14, 2012) showed Ingle complied with most case-plan requirements; DHS recommended return to Ingle.
- At the six-month review, the circuit court sua sponte ceased reunification services, placed permanent custody with Neal, and closed the case, without formal statutory compliance or notice.
- Ingle appealed; the court of appeals affirmed the circuit court, and this court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to terminate reunification and close case | Ingle contends circuit court lacked authority to vest custody in Neal and to close the case sua sponte without notice. | DHS/ad litem align with Ingle, arguing improper action without proper statutory procedure. | Reversed and remanded for return of custody to Ingle; issue considered but preserved for appeal was not preserved below. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support best-interest finding | Ingle asserts substantial compliance and DHS/ad litem supported reunification; ICCT favored returning C.N. to Ingle. | Neal's custody supported by record; circuit court's best-interest finding affirmed. | On de novo review, court found the evidence supports return to Ingle; reversed for custody to Ingle. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamontagne v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. 190 (Ark. 2010) (preservation requirement for contemporaneous objections in appeals)
- Porter v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 374 Ark. 177 (Ark. 2008) (deference to circuit court findings in dependency-neglect reviews)
- Cochran v. Cochran, 309 Ark. 604 (Ark. 1992) (equitable relief on fully developed de novo records in family matters)
- Fye v. Tubbs, 240 Ark. 634 (Ark. 1966) (equitable disposition in child-custody matters)
- Narisi v. Narisi, 229 Ark. 1059 (Ark. 1959) (reversal/remand when necessary to effect proper decree)
- $15,956 in U.S. Currency v. State, 366 Ark. 70 (Ark. 2006) (de novo review in certain proceedings preserves non-waived error)
- Seago v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. 184 (Ark. 2011) (de novo review; standard for dependency-neglect findings)