Johnson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2012 Ark. App. 244
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Appellants Jessica Johnson and Andrew Evans challenge a 9-27-327 adjudication of their three children as dependent-neglected in Logan County, Arkansas.
- DHS took custody of R.U. (b. 12/12/2006), M.U. (b. 06/17/2008), and J.E. (b. 12/16/2010) on a 72-hour hold after a hotline report on July 25, 2011.
- The emergency petition had an attached affidavit consisting only of the first and last pages of a four-page DHS investigator report, omitting findings.
- Probable-cause hearing placed the youngest with Evans’s parents (Ford) and older children with DHS; parents were ordered to cooperate and attend parenting classes.
- Adjudication on Sept. 21, 2011 found the children dependent-neglected due to corporal punishment and melatonin use; all three were placed with the Fords.
- On appeal, the court reversed and dismissed the adjudication, holding the evidence insufficient to prove dependency-neglect and noting lack of basis to rely on melatonin.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the evidence sufficient for dependency-neglect? | Johnson/ Evans contend evidence insufficient to prove dependency-neglect. | DHS/ ad litem argue totality shows substantial risk due to abuse/neglect. | No; evidence insufficient; reversed and dismissed. |
| Did melatonin administration constitute dependency by abuse/neglect? | No proven harm or overdose; lack of medical context. | Over-the-counter melatonin used in questionable dosage; potential harm. | No; melatonin use not a basis for dependency-neglect. |
| Were the spankings with the belt/spoon proper basis for neglect? | Punishments may be moderate; no injury proven; Brown supports leniency. | Any spanking in violation constitutes abuse, especially under 6-year-olds. | No; insufficient proof of substantial risk or injury; reversal on this basis. |
| Did the petition/affidavit satisfy 9-27-311 requirements? | Petition lacked full factual affidavit; could affect jurisdiction. | Not addressed on appeal; focus on sufficiency of evidence. | Not addressed; reversed on sufficiency grounds; procedural issue left unresolved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Brown, 76 Ark.App. 494, 68 S.W.3d 316 (2002) (corporal punishment must be moderate and not cause injury)
- Seago v. Ark. Dept. of Human Servs., 360 S.W.3d 733 (2009 Ark. App. 767) (deference to trial court on credibility; child-focused inquiry)
- Albright v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 248 S.W.3d 498 (2007) (dependency-neglect adjudication focuses on child’s welfare)
- K.C. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 374 S.W.3d 884 (2010 Ark. App. 353) (appellate review deferential; do not substitute own credibility findings)
- Maynard v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 389 S.W.3d 627 (2011 Ark. App. 82) (risk considerations in dependency determinations)