Keckler v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2011 Ark. App. 375
Ark. Ct. App.2011Background
- D.D. was adjudicated dependent-neglected in October 2008 due to appellant’s unfit home, inadequate food, and leaving children with an inappropriate caregiver.
- In 2009 DHS moved for emergency custody; children were placed with the maternal grandparents and D.D. repeatedly hospitalized for psychiatric/behavioral problems.
- May 2009 DHS recommended reunification and return of D.D. to appellant with ongoing services; evidence noted unemployment and inconsistent compliance with case plan.
- Over time the trial court allowed various visits and ordered compliance with services, with periods where custody remained with appellant and other periods where it was with appellee under monitoring.
- May–July 2010: appellee filed for modification; after a hearing, the court found D.D. needed stability and granted custody to appellee, defecting visitation to future arrangements.
- The appellate court affirmed the custody modification, finding the order final as to custody and that the change was in D.D.’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finality of the custody order | Pittman argues the order is not final because visitation remained unresolved. | Kriete contends Rule 2 permits appeal on custody finality even if visitation is open. | Order final as to custody; appeal proper. |
| Preservation of statutory-compliance challenges | Pittman contends trial court ignored statutory requirements for modification. | Kriete asserts the issues were not preserved for review. | Underscored that issues not raised below are not reviewed. |
| Best interests standard under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-334(a)(2)(A) | Pittman argues the evidence supports keeping D.D. with mother. | Kriete argues the father’s home offers structure and stability necessary for D.D. | Modification to D.D.’s custody to father affirmed as in his best interest. |
| Sufficiency of record to support best-interests finding | Pittman emphasizes potential for reunification and mother’s treatment progress. | Kriete cites D.D.’s need for routine, structure, and stability; mother’s history of instability. | Record supported trial court’s best-interests determination in favor of father. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2010 Ark. App. 851 (Ark. App. 2010) (de novo review for equity matters with great deference to trial court on credibility)
- Judkins v. Duvall, 248 S.W.3d 492 (Ark. App. 2007) (credibility of witnesses given deference in custody cases)
- West v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 281 S.W.3d 733 (Ark. 2008) (custody order final as to custody despite unresolved collateral issues)
- Ford v. Ford, 65 S.W.3d 432 (Ark. 2002) (appeal from custody decision when custody final; other issues ok to be non-final)
- Broderick v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 358 S.W.3d 909 (Ark. App. 2009) (preservation requirement for appellate review)
- Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services v. Jones, 248 S.W.3d 507 (Ark. App. 2007) (preservation and review standards in DHS cases)