Krecker v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 537
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Father James Krecker and mother Crystal Krecker had three children (S.K., N.K., J.K.); DHS removed the children after findings of sexual abuse in the household and later physical abuse by stepmother Corina (belt bruising).
- Children were adjudicated dependent-neglected; DHS created a case plan requiring parenting classes, individual counseling, family therapy, safety measures (including an alarm on S.K.’s bedroom), and supervision during visits.
- During an overnight visit, the required bedroom alarm allegedly was not activated, and an incident of inappropriate sexual touching among siblings occurred; overnight visitation was suspended and supervised visits ordered.
- DHS changed the permanency goal to adoption after finding the parents only partially compliant and that safety-plan breaches continued; DHS then filed to terminate parental rights (grounds included failure-to-remedy, subsequent factors, and aggravated circumstances).
- At the termination hearing, therapists testified that S.K. had attachment issues and benefitted from continued work toward reunification, but neither recommended return to the father; DHS caseworker testified S.K. was adoptable and stable in foster care.
- The trial court found statutory grounds proven and concluded termination was in the children’s best interest; the court terminated parental rights and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Krecker's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether terminating James Krecker’s parental rights to S.K. was in S.K.’s best interest | Therapists said S.K. needed ongoing work on attachment with father and termination could be harmful; adoption would be difficult | DHS argued adoptability, stability in foster care, ongoing safety risks, and father’s failure to remediate support termination | Court affirmed termination: best-interest finding not clearly erroneous; therapists did not recommend reunification and DHS showed adoptability/stability evidence |
| Whether evidence of adoptability was sufficient for best-interest determination | Argued therapists’ testimony that S.K. would be hard to adopt should weigh against termination | DHS caseworker testified S.K. is adoptable and adoption likelihood is a factor to be considered | Court held adoptability need not be proven by a specific quantum; caseworker testimony supports adoptability and trial court reasonably weighed the factor |
Key Cases Cited
- Posey v. Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services, 370 Ark. 500, 262 S.W.3d 159 (defines clear-and-convincing standard and appellate review for terminations)
- Caldwell v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2016 Ark. App. 144, 484 S.W.3d 719 (caseworker testimony can suffice to support adoptability)
- Smith v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2013 Ark. App. 753, 431 S.W.3d 364 (trial court must consider likelihood of adoption in best-interest analysis)
- Renfro v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2011 Ark. App. 419, 385 S.W.3d 285 (likelihood-of-adoption is a permissible consideration in best-interest determinations)
- Grant v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2010 Ark. App. 636, 378 S.W.3d 227 (reversal where adoptability testimony was conclusory and child’s special needs/attachment were not adequately considered)
- Sharks v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2016 Ark. App. 435, 502 S.W.3d 569 (potential-harm inquiry is broad; past parental conduct over time is probative of future risk)