Jung v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2014 Ark. App. 523
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Brandy Jung appeals a Carroll County Circuit Court termination of parental rights to her child N.E., challenging best-interest and statutory-ground findings.
- DHS took custody of N.E. in May 2012 after Jung was arrested for multiple offenses while caring for the child; N.E. was in dirty clothing with no formula.
- DHS found concerns including unused WIC vouchers, only one well-baby visit, no vaccinations, and a prior March 2012 open investigation for smoking in the car with N.E. and meth use.
- Permanency plans showed Jung failed to maintain stable housing and employment and had ongoing drug use with positive screens, and later suspected adulterated samples.
- DHS filed a petition to terminate on May 31, 2013, alleging best interests and multiple statutory grounds; the trial court granted termination.
- On appeal, Jung argues lack of proven potential harm in return and challenges the sufficiency of evidence for the statutory grounds; Evans’ appeal was consolidated but dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best interests: is termination supported by potential harm to N.E.? | Jung argues no clear potential harm if returned; she was not abusive and completed services. | DHS contends ongoing instability and drug use create forward-looking potential harm; adoption likely. | Yes; potential harm supported; termination affirmed. |
| Existence of one or more statutory grounds for termination? | Jung contends grounds not clearly proven. | DHS asserts multiple grounds including dependency-neglect, failure to remedy removal, ongoing drug use. | Yes; sufficient evidence supports termination under § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones-Lee v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 160 (Ark. App. 2009) (termination standard; best interests require clear and convincing evidence)
- Welch v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 290 (Ark. App. 2010) (potential harm assessed forward-looking)
- Collins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2013 Ark. App. 90 (Ark. App. 2013) (forward-looking assessment of potential harm)
- Carroll v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 148 S.W.3d 780 (2004) (guides best-interest and harm considerations)
- Drake v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 427 S.W.3d 710 (Ark. App. 2013) (one viable statutory ground suffices for termination)
- Fenstermacher v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 426 S.W.3d 483 (Ark. App. 2013) (supports reliance on multiple grounds for termination)
- Pratt v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 413 S.W.3d 261 (Ark. App. 2012) (de novo review standard for termination findings)
- Hall v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 413 S.W.3d 542 (Ark. App. 2012) (housing and employment as potential-harm indicators)