Jackie Thacker v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Child
585 S.W.3d 698
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- DHS filed an emergency-custody petition for B.T. after the mother (Heydorn) was arrested; the child’s birth certificate listed Jackie Thacker as father but another man (Jeremy Taylor) claimed to be the biological father.
- Records showed Heydorn and Thacker were married from January 5, 2010, to February 17, 2012; B.T. was born in June 2011.
- At adjudication the court found Thacker to be a noncustodial legal parent but unfit due to lack of visitation and admitted marijuana use; reunification was initially the goal but later changed to termination.
- Permanency hearing noted visitation problems and that Thacker had limited housing/employment proof; genetic testing was ordered, but Thacker declined DNA testing at the termination hearing.
- DHS petitioned to terminate Thacker’s parental rights; the court terminated on grounds of failure-to-remedy, aggravated circumstances, and subsequent factors, and found termination in the child’s best interest.
- On appeal Thacker challenged only the sufficiency of proof that he was a “parent” (i.e., legal father); the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thacker is a “parent” (legal father) for purposes of termination | DHS failed to prove he was married to the mother at the child’s birth, so he is not a statutory “parent.” | Adjudication order, affidavit showing marriage dates and child’s birth during marriage, and family-service-worker testimony established legal parentage; Thacker declined DNA testing. | Court held evidence sufficient; prior adjudication was final and unappealed, and Thacker’s refusal to test amounted to acquiescence. |
| Whether statutory grounds for termination were established | Grounds cannot apply if he is not a parent. | Failure-to-remedy, aggravated circumstances, and subsequent-factors were shown by the record and prior findings. | Court affirmed that the statutory grounds were supported. |
| Effect of Thacker’s refusal to submit to DNA testing | Refusal leaves uncertainty; court should not infer parentage. | Declining testing after being advised of consequences constitutes acquiescence; he cannot later complain. | Court treated the refusal as acquiescence and relied on existing findings and testimony. |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interest | (Not challenged on appeal.) | DHS and trial court found termination was in child’s best interest. | Best-interest finding stood and was not disturbed on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tovias v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2019 Ark. App. 228, 575 S.W.3d 621 (reversal where record lacked basis to find appellant was a “parent”)
- Brown v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 104, 542 S.W.3d 899 (party may not complain about a finding he induced, consented to, or acquiesced in)
- Dade v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. App. 443, 503 S.W.3d 96 (standard of review for termination—de novo with deference to circuit court fact findings)
- Howell v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2017 Ark. App. 154, 517 S.W.3d 431 (adjudication order is final and appealable; failure to appeal binds later proceedings)
- Jackson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. App. 440, 503 S.W.3d 122 (weight given to circuit court’s personal observations in child-welfare matters)