Kohlman v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Children, 544 S.W.3d 595

DHS filed for emergency custody on April 4, 2016, after reports the mother left children with a babysitter who (and the mother) tested positive for drugs; children were ultimately removed.
Steven was initially identified as a putative father; DNA later established paternity and he was appointed counsel in March 2017.
Historical safety concerns: prior DHS true findings against Steven (inadequate supervision and physical abuse) and a 2012 aggravated-assault conviction against the children’s mother involving Steven.
During the case Steven spent roughly 9–10 of the 15 months incarcerated (probation violations, DWI, failure to appear); he had intermittent contact and some drug screens negative but missed or failed to complete required services.
DHS petitioned to terminate parental rights (filed March 15, 2017); the trial court terminated both parents on August 16, 2017, finding three statutory grounds, including "aggravated circumstances," and that termination was in the children’s best interest.
On appeal Steven argued denial of due process (not made party/served earlier), insufficiency of statutory grounds, and that termination was not in the children’s best interest; the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kohlman)	Defendant's Argument (DHS)	Held
Whether Kohlman was denied due process by not being made a party or offered services until termination petition	He was not made a party or provided services until DHS sought termination, depriving him of due process	No preserved due-process objection at trial; procedural default	Not preserved on appeal; point denied
Whether statutory grounds for termination were proven (failure-to-remedy, subsequent factors, aggravated circumstances)	Failure-to-remedy improper because he bore no responsibility for initial removal; other grounds fail because he lacked meaningful DHS services	DHS relied on aggravated circumstances showing little likelihood services would effect reunification given Steven’s criminality and history	Affirmed on aggravated-circumstances ground; sufficient to support termination
Whether DHS was required to provide meaningful reunification services before proving aggravated circumstances	He contends lack of services negates the grounds	Court: aggravated-circumstances finding does not require proof that meaningful services were actually provided	DHS need not prove services were offered; holding affirmed
Whether termination was in children’s best interest	He argued he could reunify if given time and services	DHS pointed to violence, alcohol issues, incarcerations, and children’s adoptability and need for permanency	Court found no clear error; termination in children’s best interest

Mitchell v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 430 S.W.3d 851 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013) (standard of review for termination appeals)
Anderson v. Douglas, 839 S.W.2d 196 (Ark. 1992) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
J.T. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 947 S.W.2d 761 (Ark. 1997) (appellate review of factfinding in termination cases)
Yarborough v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 240 S.W.3d 626 (Ark. Ct. App. 2006) (clear-error standard explained)
M.T. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 952 S.W.2d 177 (Ark. Ct. App. 1997) (statutory requirement of at least one ground plus best interest)
Wafford v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 495 S.W.3d 96 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (only one statutory ground needed for termination)
Draper v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 389 S.W.3d 58 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (aggravated-circumstances discussion; services not prerequisite)
Maxwell v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 205 S.W.3d 801 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005) (appellate review will not consider arguments raised first on appeal)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental liberty interest in custody and control of children)