Kelly Trogstad v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children
609 S.W.3d 661
Ark. Ct. App.2020Background
- DHS opened dependency-neglect proceedings after reports in 2016 that S.J. had a black eye and a history of behavioral problems and prior foster placements; a protection plan prohibited corporal punishment by Kelly’s husband, Jedediah.
- S.J. was adjudicated dependent-neglected in December 2016; in August 2017 DHS obtained emergency custody after Jedediah allegedly grabbed and threw S.J. and Kelly admitted slapping S.J. and was present during abuse.
- In October 2017 both S.J. and A.T. were adjudicated dependent-neglected; Kelly was ordered to undergo psychological and drug/alcohol evaluations, submit to random drug screens, maintain housing, and engage in services.
- Over the case Kelly repeatedly tested positive for drugs, evaded drug screens (failed to provide an address, clipped nails), attended a church program instead of recommended intensive treatment, and appeared under the influence at the termination hearing.
- A 2017 psychological evaluation reported severely limited functioning, recommended intensive supports, and concluded reunification was doubtful; evidence showed Kelly would not leave Jedediah and had a long DHS history.
- DHS petitioned to terminate Kelly’s parental rights; the trial court found four statutory grounds (including aggravated circumstances/little likelihood of reunification) and that termination was in the children’s best interest; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Trogstad's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aggravated circumstances (little likelihood services will succeed) were proved | DHS failed to provide drug treatment in the last year; without treatment little-likelihood finding is unsupported | Even without recent drug treatment, substantial evidence (persistent drug use, evasion of screens, poor psychological prognosis, refusal to leave abusive spouse, prior DHS history) shows little likelihood reunification would succeed | Affirmed: aggravated-circumstances finding supported by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest (adoptability) | Adoption evidence was insufficient: specialist didn’t tie data-match to S.J.’s behavioral needs or sibling-placement and thus adoptability not shown | Adoption specialist identified many potential families and evaluated children’s characteristics; adoptability is one factor and need not be proved by finding an adoptive home | Affirmed: trial court reasonably found termination in children’s best interest including adoptability consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 542 S.W.3d 899 (Ark. App.) (standard of review and clear-and-convincing requirement in termination cases)
- Grant v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 378 S.W.3d 227 (Ark. App.) (insufficient adoptability evidence where only general assertions were made)
- Solee v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 535 S.W.3d 687 (Ark. App.) (caseworker testimony that a child is adoptable can support adoptability finding)
- McElroy v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 432 S.W.3d 109 (Ark. App.) (parental rights yield to children’s best interest when parents fail to provide reasonable care)
- Renfro v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 385 S.W.3d 285 (Ark. App.) (adoptability is one factor in best-interest analysis)