King v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2014 Ark. App. 278
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Three children (infant B.R. and school-age C.K.1 and C.K.2) were removed after B.R., one week old, was diagnosed with failure to thrive from neglect; older children had exposure to a registered sex offender next door and supervision concerns.
- Removal stemmed from severe malnourishment of B.R. and lack of supervision of the older children.
- ADHS provided a case plan including psychological evaluation, counseling, and intensive one-on-one feeding and safety training for appellant over several months.
- Service providers testified appellant repeatedly failed to learn or retain feeding and safety skills (e.g., improper bottle/baby positioning, giving large food pieces, failing to catch a falling infant, inability to identify unsafe caregivers).
- Appellant completed services but showed no meaningful progress; caseworker testified appellant could not safely care for the children and the children were adoptable and thriving in foster care.
- Trial court terminated parental rights under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a) (children out of parent’s custody for 12 months and conditions not remedied despite meaningful efforts); appellant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADHS failed to provide meaningful reunification services | ADHS did not provide adequate/meaningful services to reunify the family | Appellant forfeited the argument by not raising it below and affirmatively stated no other services would help | Forfeited; court declined to consider it because appellant did not preserve the issue at trial |
| Whether returning children to appellant would harm them (sufficiency of evidence on danger/fitness) | Appellant contends evidence was insufficient to show potential harm from return | ADHS presented clear-and-convincing evidence of ongoing inability to feed/recognize hazards and lack of foreseeable improvement | Held: evidence sufficient; termination upheld as in children’s best interest |
| Whether statutory ground (12 months out of custody and conditions unremedied) was proved by clear and convincing evidence | Appellant argued conditions were remedied or services inadequate | ADHS showed 12+ months out of custody and that appellant failed to remedy conditions despite services | Held: statutory ground proven; termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones-Lee v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 316 S.W.3d 261 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009) (termination is extreme but parental rights yield to child’s health and well-being)
- Wright v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 115 S.W.3d 332 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003) (affirming termination where parent failed to attain ability to safely care for children despite services)