Lacee Isom v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children
2022 Ark. App. 159
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2022Background
- DHS took emergency custody of E.I. and R.I. after they were found walking on a highway seeking rides; DHS alleged Isom left them with an inappropriate babysitter. The children had been in foster care three times in five years.
- After removal, Isom refused a drug screen at the DHS office, behaved erratically (leading to escort by security), and later exhibited frightening behavior during transport that prompted police handcuffing and arrest.
- The juveniles were placed with paternal grandparents; the circuit court adjudicated them dependent-neglected for inadequate supervision and set reunification as the goal while imposing service requirements on Isom.
- Isom repeatedly failed to comply with the case plan (services, stable housing, employment, transportation), had multiple arrests, and testified she was not ready to care for the children and that adoption by the grandparents would be in the children’s best interest.
- DHS filed a petition to terminate parental rights; the court found statutory grounds and that termination was in the children’s best interest (focusing on potential harm if returned to Isom) and terminated Isom’s parental rights.
- On appeal, Isom challenged only the best-interest finding; she also raised—but did not preserve—arguments about relative placement (least-restrictive alternative) and the absence of a permanency-planning hearing. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Isom's Argument | DHS/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest (potential-harm) | Court erred; Isom claimed she had income, would soon have employment, and could pay child support, arguing against a potential-harm finding | Record shows Isom refused/failed services, had unstable housing/employment/transportation, arrests, and erratic behavior that supported potential-harm | Affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supported potential-harm prong of best-interest finding |
| Whether least-restrictive alternative (placement/guardianship with grandparents) should have been used instead | Placement with paternal grandparents was available and less restrictive than terminating rights | Argument not raised below; thus not preserved for appeal | Not considered on appeal (argument forfeited) |
| Whether failure to hold a permanency-planning hearing requires reversal | Court’s failure to hold the hearing warrants reversal | Argument not preserved because Isom did not request the hearing; even if missing, statute provides no automatic remedy and would not change outcome | Not preserved; no reversible error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Heath v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 576 S.W.3d 86 (Ark. App. 2019) (standard of review in termination appeals)
- Gonzalez v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 555 S.W.3d 915 (Ark. App. 2018) (court need not identify specific potential harm to support potential-harm finding)
- Cole v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 611 S.W.3d 218 (Ark. App. 2020) (evidence supporting statutory grounds may also support potential-harm analysis; preservation principles)
- Belt v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 603 S.W.3d 203 (Ark. App. 2020) (failure to comply with court orders and arrests can support termination)
- Jung v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 443 S.W.3d 555 (Ark. App. 2014) (lack of stable housing or employment can demonstrate potential harm)
- Gossett v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 374 S.W.3d 205 (Ark. App. 2010) (appellate deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- McKinney v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 527 S.W.3d 778 (Ark. App. 2017) (failure to hold permanency-planning hearing does not automatically mandate reversal)
- Davidson v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 585 S.W.3d 738 (Ark. App. 2019) (failure to challenge statutory grounds constitutes abandonment on appeal)