Johnson v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
547 S.W.3d 489
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- D.J. was removed at birth (Mar. 2016) after he and his mother tested positive for cocaine and THC; appellant Don Johnson acknowledged paternity and later completed DNA testing showing 99.99% probability of paternity.
- Appellant initially tested positive for THC and later for cocaine on hair-follicle tests; he was on parole and had prior drug convictions and prison terms.
- The juvenile court adjudicated D.J. dependent-neglected under Garrett’s Law and ordered services for putative father pending paternity confirmation; appellant was later added as a party after DNA results.
- DHS and the attorney ad litem sought termination of appellant’s parental rights based on: (1) twelve months out of custody without remedy, (2) subsequent factors making placement contrary to the child’s welfare, and (3) aggravated circumstances; the court found subsequent factors and aggravated circumstances proven.
- The court emphasized appellant’s ongoing drug use, inconsistent/random drug-screen availability, partial compliance with treatment, and continued cohabitation with the mother (who continued to test positive), concluding these demonstrated indifference/incapacity and little likelihood services would lead to safe placement.
- The circuit court found termination was in the child’s best interest (adoptability and potential harm findings); appellant appealed arguing insufficient evidence, especially as to paternity proof and the subsequent/aggravated grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | DHS/Ad Litem's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved appellant was a "parent" for termination purposes | No express court order establishing parenthood; absence of such order means DHS did not prove he was a parent | DNA results, repeated court findings, and inclusion as party established biological parenthood | Court: DNA evidence and repeated findings sufficed; appellant was a parent |
| Sufficiency of proof for "subsequent factors" ground (post-petition issues that make placement contrary to child’s welfare) | Evidence was insufficient to show subsequent factors or indifference/incapacity to remedy them | Appellant’s continued positive drug tests, partial treatment compliance, refusal/avoidance of random screens, and continued cohabitation with mother who used drugs are subsequent factors | Court: Subsequent factors proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Sufficiency of proof for "aggravated circumstances"/little likelihood that further services will result in placement | DHS failed to prove aggravated circumstances or that further services would be futile | Appellant’s half-hearted compliance, ongoing drug use, parole risk, and failure to separate from mother show little likelihood services would succeed | Court: Aggravated-circumstances finding supported (court found little likelihood continued services would permit placement) |
| Best-interest determination | (Appellant did not challenge best-interest findings on appeal) | Termination is in child’s best interest given need for permanency, adoptability, and potential harm if returned | Court: Best-interest findings not challenged; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Earls v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2017 Ark. 171, 518 S.W.3d 81 (Ark. 2017) (statutory definition and construction of "parent" under termination statute)
- Shaffer v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 489 S.W.3d 182 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (standard of review and clear-and-convincing-evidence principles in termination appeals)
- Greenhaw v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 495 S.W.3d 109 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (interpretation of termination statutes and statutory grounds)
- Houseman v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 491 S.W.3d 153 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (principles on reasonable efforts and permanency planning)