Jones v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 125
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- DHS removed B.M. (born 2011) and his older brother A.J. after Jones failed to appear in court and DHS discovered drug paraphernalia; Jones tested positive for methamphetamine.\
- Jones stipulated that both children were dependent-neglected due to her drug use and was ordered to complete extensive services (drug treatment, parenting classes, counseling, drug testing, housing/employment requirements, supervised visits).\
- Over two years Jones completed much of the case plan (inpatient treatment, negative drug tests, employment, housing, multiple parenting classes) and received temporary/trial placements with both children.\
- Trial placements failed: B.M. was returned to DHS after safety concerns (including alcohol given to A.J.); A.J. ran away during a trial placement and Jones failed to timely report it or follow court-ordered restrictions.\
- In January 2016 the court changed the permanency goal to adoption; DHS and B.M.’s attorney filed to terminate Jones’s parental rights. On April 7, 2016 the circuit court terminated Jones’s rights to B.M. for failure-to-remedy and subsequent-factors grounds and found termination was in B.M.’s best interest.\
- On appeal Jones argued she had completed services and remedied the conditions causing removal; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding clear-and-convincing evidence that Jones failed to remedy parenting deficiencies and that termination was in the child’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jones) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved failure-to-remedy (§ 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a)) | Jones argued she completed services and remedied conditions (drug addiction, housing, employment, classes) so termination is unsupported | DHS argued that although Jones completed services, she failed to remedy longstanding parenting deficiencies (unable to discipline, follow court orders, protect child safety) | Court held DHS proved failure-to-remedy by clear and convincing evidence; completion of services did not achieve intended parenting improvement |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interest (§ 9-27-341(b)(3)(A)) | Jones argued she posed no danger to B.M. and was bonded to him; no DHS witness identified specific health/safety risk | DHS pointed to repeated failures to discipline/control children, violations of court orders (purchasing alcohol for A.J.), running away incidents, and two years in foster care favoring permanency | Court held termination was in B.M.’s best interest considering potential harm and need for permanency |
| Whether parenting failures as to A.J. could justify termination as to B.M. | Jones contended A.J.’s issues should not be transferred to B.M.; parenting mistakes limited to difficulty saying no | DHS argued parental conduct with one child predicts future risk to siblings—Jones repeated the same failures with both children | Court held past parenting of A.J. was probative of likely future harm to B.M. and supported termination |
| Whether mere completion of case plan bars termination | Jones claimed full compliance with case plan mandates reversal | DHS and court asserted statutory focus is whether completion produced the intended remedial effect (capability to parent), not mere completion | Court held mere completion is insufficient where services did not effectuate necessary parenting change; termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bearden v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 317, 42 S.W.3d 397 (2001) (potential-harm analysis may be broad and living in uncertainty can be harmful to children)
- Linker-Flores v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 364 Ark. 224, 217 S.W.3d 107 (2005) (TPR statute aims to provide permanency consistent with child's development)
- Kight v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 87 Ark. App. 230, 189 S.W.3d 498 (2004) (remedying sole condition of removal—drug addiction—can bar termination when no other parental unfitness exists)
- Ivers v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 98 Ark. App. 57, 250 S.W.3d 279 (2007) (distinguishable; involved different statutory ground)
- Dozier v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 372 S.W.3d 849 (Ark. App. 2010) (completion of case plan does not automatically preclude termination; focus is on whether services achieved intended remedial result)
- Ford v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 434 S.W.3d 378 (Ark. App. 2014) (parent's past behavior is a predictor of future behavior for TPR analysis)
- Helvey v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 501 S.W.3d 398 (Ark. App. 2016) (past behavior may indicate potential harm if child returned)