King v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2016 Ark. App. 368
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- Mother Hailey King and father Kelby arrested June 25, 2015 for drug-related offenses; DHS took custody of their 11-month-old daughter D.K. under a 72-hour hold.
- D.K. was adjudicated dependent-neglected in September 2015; reunification was the case plan and DHS filed for termination of parental rights in October 2015.
- At the December 2015 termination hearing, DHS presented evidence King had ongoing methamphetamine addiction, refused rehabilitation services, lacked stable housing/income/transportation, and had minimal, non-meaningful visitation.
- The trial court found two statutory grounds for termination (including aggravated circumstances based on low likelihood that services would achieve reunification) and that termination was in D.K.’s best interest; paternal grandmother testified she sought to adopt D.K.
- King’s counsel filed a Linker-Flores motion to withdraw, asserting no meritorious appeal; King received attempted notice but did not file pro se points. The Court of Appeals affirmed and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (King) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds (aggravated circumstances) were proven by clear and convincing evidence | Termination was erroneous / insufficient basis for termination | King had long-term drug addiction, refused treatment, made no meaningful progress or visitation; services unlikely to achieve reunification | Affirmed — aggravated circumstances proven; one ground sufficient to support termination |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interest | Termination not in child’s best interest | Child was adoptable; continued parental drug use and instability posed risk of harm | Affirmed — termination found to be in D.K.’s best interest |
| Whether denial of continuance for alleged ICWA/tribal-notice issue was error | D.K. is an Indian child; Kiowa Tribe required notice and continuance | Paternal line not enrolled/eligible such that D.K. qualifies; ICWA therefore did not apply | Affirmed — D.K. is not an Indian child under ICWA; no notice required |
| Whether counsel could withdraw under Linker‑Flores after finding no meritorious appeal | (No pro se points filed; no substantive challenge to withdrawal) | Counsel complied with Linker‑Flores notice and brief requirements | Motion to withdraw granted; court satisfied requirements and affirmed judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Linker‑Flores v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (Ark. 2004) (sets procedure for appellate counsel to move to withdraw when no meritorious appeal exists)