Jessica Atwood and Vincent Peal v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Child
588 S.W.3d 48
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- DHS filed for emergency custody of S.A. (born 10/30/17) on Jan. 4, 2018 after mother Jessica Atwood was arrested; ex parte emergency custody granted and probable cause found.
- On Feb. 15, 2018 the juvenile court adjudicated S.A. dependent-neglected based on Atwood’s erratic behavior, arrest, and housing instability; Peal was ordered to establish paternity upon release.
- A DNA test later established Vincent Peal as the child’s father; by the June 2018 review the foster mother was bonded to S.A. and expressed interest in permanent placement.
- DHS referred Atwood for parenting classes, drug-and-alcohol assessment, and psychological evaluation; Atwood was incarcerated and admitted to prior positive drug tests and had not completed services.
- DHS’s adoption specialist ran a data-match identifying 428 potential “resources” matching the child’s characteristics; the permanency plan reflected foster-mother interest in permanence.
- DHS petitioned to terminate parental rights (alleging abandonment, aggravated circumstances, subsequent factors, and failure-to-remedy grounds); the circuit court found statutory grounds and adoptability, terminated both parents’ rights, and appellants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence of adoptability/best interest was sufficient | Atwood and Peal: DHS failed to prove adoptability; specialist’s testimony was vague and did not say child is adoptable | DHS: adoptability is only a factor; data-match plus foster-parent’s expressed interest and review orders support adoptability finding | The court’s adoptability/best-interest finding was supported by evidence (data-match and foster mother’s interest); affirmed |
| Whether DHS’s failure to provide meaningful services to Peal precludes termination | Peal: DHS offered only parenting classes and a paternity test, not meaningful reunification services, so termination is improper | DHS/Ct: aggravated-circumstances ground was proved, and that ground does not require proof of meaningful services | Aggravated-circumstances supports termination; lack of additional services is not reversible error under that ground; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Dade v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 503 S.W.3d 96 (standard of review in termination cases; de novo with deference to circuit court findings)
- Jackson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 503 S.W.3d 122 (weight given to circuit court’s personal observations in child-welfare matters)
- Fox v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 448 S.W.3d 735 (termination is an extreme remedy; heavy burden on party seeking termination)
- T.J. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 947 S.W.2d 761 (two-step termination analysis: statutory grounds then best interest)
- Smith v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 431 S.W.3d 364 (same two-step framework requiring proof of grounds and best-interest consideration)
- Tucker v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 389 S.W.3d 1 (adoptability is a factor, not an element, of best-interest analysis)
- Sharks v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 502 S.W.3d 569 (no required "magic words" or specific quantum of evidence to support adoptability finding)
- McFarland v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 210 S.W.3d 143 (evidence that adoptive parents have been found is not required)
- Renfro v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 385 S.W.3d 285 (no requirement to prove child will be adopted at time of termination)
- Willis v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 538 S.W.3d 842 (aggravated-circumstances termination does not require proof that DHS provided meaningful reunification services)