Knuckles v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2015 Ark. App. 463
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Twins born Aug. 2012; DHS took emergency custody in Aug. 2013 after a welfare check, appellant tested positive for methamphetamine and was arrested.
- Children adjudicated dependent-neglected Oct. 2013; reunification was original goal and services were offered (drug treatment, housing, income).
- Appellant initially made some progress and the children had a trial placement in Apr. 2014, but appellant repeatedly tested positive for methamphetamine and cocaine and failed multiple inpatient programs.
- Permanency hearing Aug. 2014 changed goal to adoption; trial court found appellant noncompliant and authorized DHS to seek termination.
- DHS petitioned to terminate parental rights Nov. 2014; termination hearing held Dec. 2014 and parental rights were terminated in Jan. 2015.
- Trial court found two statutory grounds under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-327(b)(3)(B) (out-of-custody/12-months/failure-to-remedy and "other factors") and that termination was in the children’s best interest; appellant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | DHS/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination were proven by clear and convincing evidence | Appellant: her mental-health and drug issues were being corrected; had several months of improvement and deserved more time | DHS: appellant had a lengthy history of drug use, repeatedly failed treatment, children had been out of custody >1 year and mother made insufficient measurable progress | Court: statutory grounds proven; no clear error in termination findings |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest (including potential harm if returned) | Appellant: bonded to children, no showing of potential harm, requested more reunification time | DHS: children need permanency; continued delay would harm stability; children are adoptable | Court: termination was in children's best interest; potential-harm inquiry satisfied and permanency outweighs parent's request for more time |
| Whether provision of additional reunification services / time was required | Appellant: was enrolled in a program and expected to complete; needed more time to reunify | DHS: offered multiple treatment opportunities which appellant abandoned or was removed from; additional time was unreasonable from children’s perspective | Court: additional time unreasonable given length children were out of home and uncertain timeline for reunification |
| Adoptability of the children (relevancy to best-interest finding) | Appellant did not contest adoptability | DHS: children were adoptable and placed in pre-adoptive home | Court: adoptability factor met and considered in best-interest determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (2001) (standard of review in termination cases and requirements for statutory grounds and best-interest finding)
- Camarillo-Cox v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 360 Ark. 340, 201 S.W.3d 391 (2005) (case-plan compliance is not dispositive; focus is whether parent is a stable, safe caregiver)
- Anderson v. Douglas, 310 Ark. 633, 839 S.W.2d 196 (1992) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Stephens v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2013 Ark. App. 249, 427 S.W.3d 160 (past parental behavior as indicator of future behavior; permanency concerns can override requests for more time)
- Dozier v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 17, 372 S.W.3d 849 (child’s need for permanency may outweigh a parent’s request for more time)