Joslin v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
577 S.W.3d 26
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Father Charles Joslin appealed termination of his parental rights to three daughters (KJ b.2002, AJ b.2004, EJ b.2006); he did not contest statutory grounds for termination.
- Children entered DHS custody after Joslin’s May 2017 arrest for domestic battery/assault (he admitted hitting all three; KJ was choked when dragged by her hoodie); mother’s rights also later terminated.
- Over ~16 months in DHS custody, Joslin repeatedly failed to complete case-plan services (domestic-violence, parenting, drug treatment), lacked stable housing/employment, had multiple incarcerations, and demonstrated ongoing anger/drug issues.
- DHS placed the children with non-legal-relatives or foster caregivers; current caregivers expressed interest in adopting the children.
- At the termination hearing Joslin sought to call EJ as a witness to show familial bonds; the court excluded EJ after counsel proffered expected testimony.
- The circuit court found termination was in the children’s best interest (adoptability and potential harm if returned); the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Joslin) | Defendant's Argument (DHS/Attorney ad litem) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in children’s best interest | Joslin argued he’d made progress (mental health, near-completion of rehab), children wanted contact, family bonds exist, less drastic options (guardianship) could preserve ties | DHS argued Joslin failed to complete services, posed safety risks, children need permanency; caregivers willing to adopt | Court affirmed: not clearly erroneous to find termination in best interest given lack of timely remediation and need for permanency |
| Whether court abused discretion by excluding EJ’s live testimony | Joslin wanted EJ to testify about attachments to relatives and siblings to show preserving bonds is in children’s best interest | Attorney ad litem objected (children didn’t want to testify) and offered stipulation; other witnesses could provide same information | Court affirmed: exclusion was not prejudicial because expected testimony was cumulative and covered by other evidence |
| Whether exclusion was unpreserved for appeal (need for offer of proof) | Joslin contended record adequately preserved claim via proffer | Attorney ad litem argued no preservation | Court held preserved: counsel gave offer of proof when court requested; appellate review allowed |
| Relevance of relative-placement alternatives to best-interest analysis | Joslin cited cases where noncustodial termination didn’t promote permanency when other parent had custody | DHS noted this was a two-parent termination and children were not placed with legal relatives; relatives did not have custody | Court held Caldwell/Lively distinction inapplicable here; permanency through termination appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Harjo v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 548 S.W.3d 865 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018) (standard of appellate review for TPR and deference to circuit court credibility findings)
- Ewasiuk v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 540 S.W.3d 318 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018) (parental past behavior as indicator of future behavior; deference to trial court on best interest)
- Lively v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 456 S.W.3d 383 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (relative-placement considerations can affect best-interest analysis where another parent retains custody)
- Hooks v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 536 S.W.3d 666 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (nonprejudicial evidentiary rulings will not reverse termination orders)
- Brown v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 511 S.W.3d 895 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (offer-of-proof suffices to preserve claim about excluded testimony)
- Howard v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 512 S.W.3d 676 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (exclusion of cumulative evidence is not prejudicial when same information is otherwise in record)
- Scrivner v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 497 S.W.3d 206 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (distinguishing placements with legal relatives for best-interest/relative-placement analysis)
- Fisher v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 569 S.W.3d 886 (Ark. Ct. App. 2019) (two-parent termination context and permanency analysis)
- Heath v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 576 S.W.3d 86 (Ark. Ct. App. 2019) (permanency focus where return to parent not reasonably achievable)
- Swinford v. State, 154 S.W.3d 262 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004) (preservation and offer-of-proof principles)