James v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Child
562 S.W.3d 218
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- DHS removed PJ (b. 11/18/2006) after an August 2016 incident where Kristen left the scene of a crash and left PJ with an intoxicated caregiver; PJ was placed with paternal grandparents in August 2016.
- Multiple court orders required Kristen to complete counseling, drug-and-alcohol assessment, random drug screens (including a hair test), parenting classes, and maintain contact with DHS and visits; a no-contact order and later permanency plan for adoption were entered.
- DHS alleged statutory grounds for termination including 12-month removal with unremedied conditions, willful failure to support/contact, and subsequent factors arising after the dependency petition.
- At the December 2017 TPR hearing, witnesses (DHS worker, grandparents, caregiver witnesses, Kristen, and PJ) testified about Kristen’s partial compliance, positive hair test for marijuana, refusal/violations of testing orders, credibility issues, and PJ’s preference to remain with grandparents.
- The trial court found clear-and-convincing evidence of statutory grounds (including the subsequent-factors ground) and that termination was in PJ’s best interests (adoptability and potential harm if returned to Kristen).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kristen) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved a statutory ground for termination based on subsequent factors arising after the original petition | Kristen argued DHS failed to prove a statutory ground and she had remedied conditions; her compliance meant termination was unwarranted | DHS argued Kristen violated court orders after the dependency petition (missed contacts, refused/failed drug tests, hair test positive, dyed hair contrary to order), showing incapacity/indifference to remedy issues | Court held DHS proved the subsequent-factors ground under Ark. Code § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a); Kristen’s noncompliance sufficed |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interest based on potential harm if returned to Kristen | Kristen challenged the potential-harm finding, contending the court erred in predicting harm | DHS relied on past behavior (substance issues, instability, failure to follow orders, lack of sustained sobriety, safety concerns) as predictive of future harm; also established adoptability and PJ’s preference | Court held potential-harm prong satisfied; past conduct supported a reasonable prediction of likely harm and termination was in PJ’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 525 S.W.3d 48 (Ark. App. 2017) (de novo review of TPRs; grounds proved by clear and convincing evidence; two-step analysis: statutory grounds then best interests)
- Bynum v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 528 S.W.3d 859 (Ark. App. 2017) (a parent’s failure to comply with court orders can constitute a subsequent factor supporting termination)