622 S.W.3d 644
Ark. Ct. App.2021Background:
- CACD investigated allegations that Lylyn Mitchell and her husband disciplined foster children (SS, age 4; RS, age 3) and biological son (EM, age 8) with a ruler; interviews and observations were conducted.
- Recorded interviews included admissions by Mitchell that she would "bop" children on the head with a ruler and testimony by SS and EM that Mitchell hit children on the head; RS was observed to have linear bruising on back and leg.
- An ALJ found three maltreatment allegations against Mitchell true: (1) nonaccidental physical injury to RS (bruising attributed to ruler), and (2) intentionally/knowingly striking SS and RS on the head (children under six), and ordered Mitchell placed on the Arkansas Child Maltreatment Central Registry.
- The ALJ excluded EM’s bruise under the statutory physical-discipline exception because EM is Mitchell’s biological child; the ALJ found the exception did not apply to foster children.
- Mitchell appealed, arguing lack of substantial evidence, that the physical-discipline exception should cover foster parents (as de facto guardians), and that "bopping" was not "striking." The Sevier County Circuit Court affirmed the ALJ; this Court reviews whether substantial evidence supports the agency decision.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports DHS’s abuse findings | Mitchell: record lacks substantial evidence to support abuse findings | DHS: interviews, admissions, and bruising provide credible, probative evidence | Affirmed—substantial evidence supports ALJ’s findings |
| Whether the physical-discipline exception applies to foster parents | Mitchell: foster parents (delegated custody) are "parents or guardians" so exception should apply | DHS: statute limits exception to parents/guardians as defined; foster parents are not guardians under statutory definition | Affirmed—exception does not extend to foster parents |
| Whether "bopping" with a ruler qualifies as "striking" a child on head/face under statute | Mitchell: "bop" was a light tap with a rubbery ruler and did not amount to "striking" or cause injury | DHS: children's credible statements that it "hurts" and planned use of ruler support characterization as striking intended to inflict pain | Affirmed—ALJ reasonably found "bopping" constituted striking under the statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 559 S.W.3d 291 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018) (describing scope of substantial-evidence review of agency decisions)
- Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Parker, 197 S.W.3d 33 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004) (broad definition of "guardian" applied in then-existing statute)
- Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services v. R.C., 249 S.W.3d 797 (Ark. 2007) (supreme court applied broad guardian definition from Parker)