Jackson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2016 Ark. App. 440
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- DHS removed J.J. in Sept. 2014 for allegations against the mother; C.J. was born thereafter and later adjudicated dependent-neglected; Jackson was adjudicated father of both children.
- The circuit court ordered Jackson to submit to random drug screens, complete parenting classes, undergo psychological and substance assessments, and complete treatment; Jackson repeatedly failed or falsified drug tests and admitted dishonesty about drug use.
- Jackson was initially given temporary custody of J.J., but J.J. was returned to DHS after Jackson failed a hair-follicle test positive for cocaine and was suspected of submitting fake urine samples.
- The court changed both children’s permanency goal to adoption after finding deception in Jackson’s drug testing and noncompliance with services, and DHS filed petitions to terminate Jackson’s parental rights on multiple statutory grounds.
- The circuit court found clear-and-convincing evidence of statutory grounds (including the "twelve-months, failure to remedy," "subsequent factors," and "aggravated circumstances" grounds) and that termination was in the children’s best interest (potential harm and adoptability), and it terminated Jackson’s parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Jackson's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether returning the children to Jackson would create potential harm | Jackson said evidence was insufficient to show risk of potential harm; some missed tests were excusable by work and he completed some treatment | Continued and recent positive drug tests, admitted falsification, refusal to submit to random screens, and credibility concerns show ongoing risk | Court held potential-harm finding supported by clear-and-convincing evidence (ongoing drug use and deception) |
| Whether C.J. is adoptable | Jackson argued caseworker’s testimony was inconsistent and no evidence of adoptive interest or details of delays was presented | Caseworker testified delays were not so severe as to preclude adoption and that with therapy and stability adoption was feasible | Court found adoptability supported (caseworker testimony sufficient) |
| Whether the termination order adequately stated statutory grounds | Jackson contended the court failed to cite the statutory subsection numbers as required | Order’s language mirrored statutory grounds; no authority requires reciting subsection numbers | Court held the findings tracked statutory language and were adequate; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 448 S.W.3d 735 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (standard for termination and weight of parental rights)
- Weatherspoon v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 426 S.W.3d 520 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013) (best-interest standard requires considering adoptability and potential harm)
- Gulley v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., S.W.3d (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (potential-harm need not identify specific future injury; forward-looking inquiry)
- Duckery v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., S.W.3d (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (caseworker testimony can support adoptability finding)
- Brown v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 478 S.W.3d 272 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (lack of evidence of adoptability fatal where DHS concedes none)
- Ford v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 434 S.W.3d 378 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (medical or developmental issues do not automatically preclude adoptability)
- Dornan v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., S.W.3d (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (termination orders must be based on one or more statutory grounds)
(Explanation: citations are the primary authorities the court relied on for standards concerning termination, potential harm, adoptability, and statutory sufficiency.)