Kristen Gibby v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children
2022 Ark. App. 146
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2022Background
- In April 2020 DHS removed TP (infant) and TF after TP was admitted with catastrophic injuries (subdural hemorrhage, extensive retinal hemorrhages, fractured rib, contusions) consistent with abusive blunt-force trauma. Medical testimony (Dr. Clingenpeel) found parents’ histories inconsistent with the injuries.
- Appellant Kristen Gibby and her husband/stepfather (Payton/"Peyton" Lane Gibby) gave multiple, conflicting accounts; Peyton at one point confessed to injuring TP but later said he lied under threat. Family witnesses described appellant’s anger and rough handling of TP.
- Juveniles were adjudicated dependent-neglected. DHS developed a reunification case plan (counseling, parenting classes, drug screens, psychological evaluation); appellant completed services and had housing/employment, but continued to offer no plausible explanation for TP’s injuries.
- DHS petitioned to terminate appellant’s parental rights under multiple statutory grounds, including aggravated circumstances (little likelihood services will reunify; abuse that could endanger life) and felony battery causing serious injury.
- The circuit court found by clear and convincing evidence that aggravated circumstances and other statutory grounds were met, that termination was in the children’s best interest (children are adoptable; risk of harm if returned), and terminated appellant’s parental rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gibby) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to support statutory grounds for termination (aggravated circumstances / felony battery / dependency-neglect based on life-endangering abuse) | Gibby: She did not perpetrate the abuse; Peyton previously confessed; conflicting family testimony should favor her; completion of services undermines termination. | DHS: TP’s injuries were life-endangering, only appellant or Peyton were present, parents’ explanations were implausible/inconsistent, appellant either abused TP or failed to protect her; services cannot address lack of plausible explanation. | Court: Sufficient evidence of aggravated circumstances; affirmed statutory-ground finding. |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest (adoptability and potential harm if returned) | Gibby: She bonded with children, complied with plan, addressed housing/employment, can separate from Peyton; termination is unnecessary. | DHS: Child nearly died; appellant either caused or failed to protect; appellant’s anger, dishonesty, and failure to explain injuries pose ongoing risk—children are adoptable and would be safer in adoptive placements. | Court: Evidence supported best-interest finding (high adoptability; risk of harm if returned); affirmed termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Posey v. Ark. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 370 Ark. 500, 262 S.W.3d 159 (standard for clear-and-convincing proof and appellate review in termination cases)
- Reid v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2011 Ark. 187, 380 S.W.3d 918 (only one statutory ground required to support termination)
- Bentley v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 374, 554 S.W.3d 285 (parent’s inconsistent explanations and credibility issues can support aggravated-circumstances finding and termination)
- Young v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 270, 549 S.W.3d 383 (distinguishable precedent regarding ability to explain injury when parent not present)
- Cobb v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2017 Ark. App. 85, 512 S.W.3d 694 (compliance with case plan not dispositive; focus is whether parent is capable of safe care)