Leslie McDaniel v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Child
2019 Ark. App. 335
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Child L.G. born May 23, 2018; meconium tested positive for methamphetamine and mother Leslie admitted recent meth use.
- DHS required a home study before placement; attempts to contact Leslie after discharge failed, and DHS took emergency custody when Leslie could not be located or contacted.
- Court ordered services (random drug screens, parenting classes, psychological and A&D assessments, stable housing/employment); Leslie largely failed to comply, refused/failed drug screens, and did not visit the child after removal.
- DHS moved to terminate reunification services; the trial court suspended visitation and later changed the permanency plan to termination and adoption.
- At the termination hearing Leslie did not appear; DHS introduced evidence including a prior involuntary termination of Leslie’s parental rights to a sibling and testimony that foster parents intended to adopt L.G.
- The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the child’s best interest and that statutory grounds existed (abandonment, aggravated circumstances/little likelihood of reunification, and prior involuntary termination as to a sibling).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds supported termination | DHS: multiple grounds proven by clear and convincing evidence (abandonment; aggravated circumstances; prior involuntary termination of sibling) | Leslie: (no pro se points filed) counsel argued no meritorious appeal; record shows noncompliance | Court: Affirmed; at least one statutory ground (prior involuntary termination as to sibling) conclusively proved, so ground requirement met |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interest | DHS: Leslie’s lack of visitation, unstable housing/employment, ongoing drug use, and high adoption likelihood made termination appropriate | Leslie: no argument presented on appeal | Court: Affirmed; best-interest finding not clearly erroneous given evidence of risk and adoptability |
| Procedural adequacy of termination hearing (including counsel’s no-merit brief) | Appellant’s counsel: filed no-merit brief under Linker-Flores and moved to withdraw asserting no arguable issues | DHS/Respondent: supported termination and court process | Court: Found counsel complied with no-merit rules, appeal without merit, granted motion to withdraw |
Key Cases Cited
- Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (establishes procedure for no-merit briefs and counsel withdrawal in dependency/termination appeals)
- Dinkins v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (standard of de novo review in termination cases)
- J.T. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (appellate standard for clear-and-convincing findings)
- Yarborough v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 96 Ark. App. 247, 240 S.W.3d 626 (definition of clearly erroneous review standard)
- Mitchell v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2013 Ark. App. 715, 430 S.W.3d 851 (statutory requirements for termination must be proved by clear and convincing evidence)
- Brown v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2017 Ark. App. 303, 521 S.W.3d 183 (only one statutory ground required to support termination)