Johnston v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 615
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In Feb 2016 DHS removed Kristina Johnston’s three children after Johnston was arrested and lacked stable housing; Johnston stipulated to dependency-neglect in Mar 2016.
- The circuit court ordered compliance with a detailed case plan (drug screens/treatment, parenting classes, counseling, psychological evaluation, stable housing and employment, visitation). Johnston intermittently complied and had repeated housing instability through 2016–2017.
- At multiple review hearings the court found only partial compliance; additional services and requirements were repeatedly ordered. Johnston completed some services (psych eval, outpatient treatment, parenting classes mostly completed, counseling underway) but had not achieved long-term housing stability or steady employment.
- At the March 2017 permanency-planning hearing DHS recommended changing goals for each child (APPLA for 17-year-old D.J.; subsidized permanent guardianship for 14-year-old L.J.; permanent custody with grandparents for 5-year-old B.M.), and the court found reunification was not in the children’s best interest. Court found Johnston had not made “significant measurable progress.”
- Johnston appealed, arguing the court erred by denying an additional three months under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-338(c) to achieve reunification and that goal changes were not in the children’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Johnston’s Argument | DHS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnston preserved sufficiency challenge on appeal | Appeal from permanency order preserved sufficiency challenge | DHS contended some arguments not preserved; but sufficiency may be raised first on appeal | Preserved — appellate sufficiency review is allowed (citing precedent) |
| Whether Johnston made "significant measurable progress" under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-338(c)(3) | Johnston: she completed many services, would finish remaining classes/counseling within 3 months, so reunification within 3 months was feasible | DHS: Johnston remained unstable (housing, employment), recent marriage to a felon, medical/medication limitations, instability after >1 year of services | Held for DHS — court not clearly erroneous; Johnston had not made significant measurable progress |
| Whether the court erred in changing permanency goals for each child | Johnston: a 3‑month extension would not harm permanency; concurrent plans or delay would satisfy children’s interests | DHS/Ad Litem: children were bonded to placements/relatives; delaying permanency risked children’s stability; reunification unlikely within 3 months | Held for DHS — goal changes were in children’s best interest and supported by record |
| Whether the circuit court made reasonable-efforts/findings required by statute | Johnston implied additional services/time could achieve reunification | DHS: department provided reasonable efforts and documented services; court described efforts | Held for DHS — court found DHS made reasonable efforts and described them in the order |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamontagne v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 366 S.W.3d 351 (Ark. 2010) (standard of review and clear-error test in dependency-neglect proceedings)
- Gyalog v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 461 S.W.3d 734 (Ark. App. 2015) (appeal from permanency-planning order preserves sufficiency challenge)
- Bearden v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 42 S.W.3d 397 (Ark. 2001) (court may consider potential harm when analyzing best interest)
- Dowdy v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 314 S.W.3d 722 (Ark. App. 2009) (circuit court not required to show actual harm to deny reunification)