Martin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2015 Ark. App. 407
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Father Eric Martin is biological parent of J.M., born Oct. 29, 2012; child was placed in DHS custody and lived outside the home for at least 12 months.
- Martin had repeated incarcerations (in custody at birth, arrested Aug. 2013, released May 29, 2014, then incarcerated again Aug. 2014 and later in ADC); during periods out of custody he did not visit, send support, or maintain contact with J.M.
- After release in June 2014 Martin completed paternity testing and began parenting classes but repeatedly missed appointments, failed a drug screen (THC and benzodiazepines), and did not follow up on DHS outreach.
- DHS notified Martin (while jailed) that a TPR petition had been filed and instructed any relatives seeking placement to request a home study; no relative completed a home study.
- Martin moved for a continuance at the start of the termination hearing, seeking delay until his anticipated March 2015 release and for his father to complete a home study; the trial court denied the continuance and later terminated his parental rights on Dec. 9, 2014.
- Trial court found statutory grounds (willful failure to provide support/maintain contact; aggravated circumstances; subsequent factors making placement contrary to child’s welfare) and that termination was in the child’s best interest; Martin appealed arguing the continuance denial and insufficient time for reunification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Martin's motion for a continuance | Martin: Requested continuance until release (Mar. 2015) to allow father to complete home study and pursue custody—denial prejudiced reunification prospects | DHS: Martin lacked diligence, requested continuance at hearing start, and his history shows he would not complete reunification steps; no relative pursued home study despite notice | Court: No abuse of discretion; denial appropriate for lack of diligence and no prejudice shown |
| Whether DHS failed to provide Martin sufficient time/services to attempt reunification | Martin: Argued insufficient time was provided to utilize reunification services before TPR | DHS: Martin had months of freedom but failed to visit, support, attend services, abstain from substances, or pursue relative placement; permanency interests favor termination | Court: Sufficient evidence that Martin did not take advantage of services; termination supported to provide child permanency |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 439 S.W.3d 81 (Ark. Ct. App.) (standard of review and clear-and-convincing-evidence requirement in TPR appeals)
- Smith v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 219 S.W.3d 705 (Ark. Ct. App.) (continuance standards and prejudice requirement)
- Meriweather v. Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 255 S.W.3d 505 (Ark. Ct. App.) (TPR goal of permanency for the child)
- Welch v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 290 (Ark. Ct. App.) (two-step TPR analysis: statutory grounds and best interest)
Affirmed.