Martin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2016 Ark. App. 521

Background

DHS removed three Martin children after medical examinations revealed a traverse femur fracture to nine‑month‑old J.M. and severe immersion burns to daughter B.D.; A.M. later taken into custody. The mother, Megan Martin, was criminally found responsible and consented to termination; she is not part of this appeal.
The parents stipulated at adjudication that B.D. was dependent‑neglected (for inadequate supervision); the court adjudicated J.M. and A.M. dependent‑neglected as siblings.
DHS sought reunification initially; visitation for Brandon was restricted and later modified after he and Megan were observed together during the case.
DHS filed to terminate parental rights; the circuit court terminated Brandon’s rights finding, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) the twelve‑month failure‑to‑remedy ground, (2) that the children were dependent‑neglected as a result of abuse endangering life, and (3) other factors indicating placement with Brandon would be contrary to the children’s welfare.
The court found Brandon not credible: he delayed seeking medical care for B.D., took a "wait and see" approach regarding Megan’s responsibility, delayed filing for divorce until the termination hearing day, lacked a concrete childcare plan, and thus might not protect the children from future harm.

Issues

Issue	Brandon's Argument	DHS's Argument	Held
Whether termination was premised on a mistake of fact that adjudication was for abuse	Brandon: adjudication was for inadequate supervision, not abuse, so termination based on abuse was erroneous	DHS: even absent a separate abuse adjudication, Brandon failed to protect children after injuries and other statutory grounds exist	Held: No mistake; other statutory grounds supported termination and Brandon’s failure to protect was valid basis
Whether termination was in children’s best interest	Brandon: he complied with DHS, children injured while he worked, poses no risk; court’s concern about continued relationship with Megan is speculative	DHS: potential future harm and lack of stability; Brandon remained ambivalent about Megan and lacked readiness to protect children	Held: Termination was in children’s best interest given credibility findings, instability, and risk of harm
Whether DHS proved a statutory ground (failure to remedy) by clear and convincing evidence	Brandon: removal was for inadequate supervision, not the reasons cited for failure to remedy; he had complied	DHS: injuries were magnified by delayed medical care and lack of protective steps; Brandon remained not credible and unprepared	Held: DHS proved at least one ground (failure to remedy); appellate court defers to trial court credibility findings
Whether DHS made meaningful efforts and offered services before termination	Brandon: DHS failed to offer services in the eight months before termination and did not meaningfully rehabilitate him	DHS: reasonable‑efforts findings were made at adjudication and review; argument about later services was not raised below and is precluded	Held: Brandon is precluded from raising the late‑services argument on appeal; meaningful‑efforts findings stand

Key Cases Cited

Camarillo-Cox v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 360 Ark. 340, 201 S.W.3d 391 (2005) (termination requires clear and convincing proof of statutory grounds and best interest)
Dinkins v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (2001) (trial court given great deference on credibility findings)
Brumley v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 455 S.W.3d 347 (Ark. App. 2015) (parental rights will not be preserved to the detriment of child’s health and well‑being)
Schaible v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 444 S.W.3d 366 (Ark. App. 2014) (completion of case plan is not dispositive; court must assess whether parent is a stable, safe caregiver)
Hernandez v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 492 S.W.3d 119 (Ark. App. 2016) (parent’s past conduct is predictive of future behavior)