Jasmine Thomas v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children
610 S.W.3d 688
Ark. Ct. App.2020Background
- DHS became involved July 9, 2018 after JT2 hospitalized for seizures and tested positive for cannabinoids; subsequent testing showed all three children exposed to illegal drugs (methamphetamine, THC, cocaine).
- Thomas repeatedly tested positive for drugs, failed to complete substance-abuse treatment, was homeless or transient, and did not obtain stable income or housing during the case.
- Children were adjudicated dependent-neglected (March–August 2019); court-ordered services included drug-and-alcohol assessment, random screens, psychological evaluation, parenting classes, and stable housing; Thomas failed to cooperate fully with the psychological evaluation and did not complete recommended services.
- Permanency-planning order (Sept. 2019) found aggravated circumstances (unlikely reunification within a reasonable time) and noted lack of material progress; Thomas did not appear at the permanency hearing and did not appeal that order.
- DHS filed to terminate parental rights; circuit court terminated Thomas’s rights to JT1, JT2, and JT3 on January 28, 2020; counsel filed a no-merit brief on appeal, no pro se points were filed, and this court affirmed and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Thomas' Argument | DHS' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for termination | Evidence insufficient to terminate parental rights | Clear-and-convincing proof: ongoing drug use, failed treatment, unstable housing, children exposed to drugs | Affirmed — evidence supports termination (clear and convincing) |
| Procedural bar to challenging aggravated-circumstances finding | Challenge not preserved / should be reviewable now | Aggravated-circumstances finding was made in permanency order and not designated or appealed earlier; procedurally barred | Affirmed — challenge procedurally barred; alternatively, record supports the finding |
| Best-interest determination | More time or reunification would be in children’s best interest | Children are adoptable together, many prospective families identified; ongoing parental substance abuse and instability make termination in best interest | Affirmed — termination supported by clear-and-convincing evidence of best interest |
| Relative placement / request for more time | Relatives (e.g., grandmother) could care for children or Thomas should be given more time | Relatives were not approved/ did not complete required background steps; permanency and child safety outweigh additional time | Affirmed — no reversible error; relatives were not approved and more time would not likely succeed |
Key Cases Cited
- Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (2004) (standards for counsel raising no-merit appeals in termination cases)
- Anderson v. Douglas, 310 Ark. 633, 839 S.W.2d 196 (1992) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
- J.T. v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (1997) (appellate review standard in termination proceedings)
- Moiser v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 95 Ark. App. 32, 233 S.W.3d 172 (2006) (credibility determinations are for the fact-finder)