Lisa Whitehead v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children
587 S.W.3d 590
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background:
- DHS became involved after the family’s apartment fire in June 2017; children disclosed maternal drug use and Lisa tested positive for PCP.
- The boys initially stayed with a cousin; when that placement failed DHS took custody and the children were adjudicated dependent-neglected (Sept. 2017) with findings that Lisa lacked stable housing, refused services, and had positive drug screens.
- DHS provided services and referrals but Lisa never achieved full compliance or a stable, safe home for reunification over a 19-month case period.
- DHS filed to terminate parental rights (Dec. 2018) alleging failure to remedy, subsequent factors, and aggravated circumstances; hearing was held Feb. 27, 2019.
- At the hearing Lisa admitted recent PCP use, unemployment, and lack of treatment completion; DHS witnesses testified the boys were adoptable, no relative placement was viable, and return to Lisa would be unsafe; the trial court terminated Lisa’s parental rights on all grounds and found termination in the children’s best interest.
- Lisa appealed solely on best-interest grounds (children’s ages, their desire to remain together and to reunify, and request for more time); the appellate court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best-interest of the children | Whitehead: termination not in children’s best interest because they want to remain together and reunify | DHS: children are adoptable; returning them would cause harm; permanency needed | Affirmed: termination was in children’s best interest |
| Children’s expressed preference | Whitehead: children oppose adoption and want reunification | DHS: children’s preferences are not controlling and DHS need not prove consent | Held for DHS; child preference not dispositive and issue not preserved |
| Request for additional time | Whitehead: needs more time to improve circumstances | DHS: children have been out 19 months; stability/permanency outweigh vague hopes | Court properly denied more time; permanency need prevailed |
| Relative placement availability | Whitehead: implied relatives could care for children | DHS: no suitable/available relative followed through with placement | Court found no viable relative placement; supported termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 430 S.W.3d 851 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013) (de novo review; two-step parental-termination analysis)
- Fisher v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 569 S.W.3d 886 (Ark. Ct. App. 2019) (best-interest factors include adoptability and potential harm)
- Childress v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 307 S.W.3d 50 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009) (give deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Guardado v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 568 S.W.3d 296 (Ark. Ct. App. 2019) (child’s stated preference does not mandate best-interest outcome)
- Brabon v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 388 S.W.3d 69 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (arguments not raised below are not preserved for appeal)