Martin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. 115
| Ark. | 2017Background
- In Oct–Nov 2014 DHS removed three children (B.D., J.M., A.M.) after B.D. suffered severe immersion burns and J.M. had a fractured femur; criminal proceedings resulted in the mother’s conviction for causing B.D.’s injuries.
- The circuit court adjudicated the children dependent-neglected (parents stipulated for B.D.; siblings adjudicated by status) and set reunification as the goal; supervised/unsupervised visitation plans were modified during the case.
- DHS filed to terminate both parents’ rights in Aug. 2015, alleging multiple statutory grounds (including failure to remedy, subsequent factors, and adjudication-as-result-of-abuse that could endanger the child’s life).
- At the Jan. 2016 termination hearing, the court questioned Brandon’s credibility: he vacillated about whether the mother caused the injuries, delayed divorce until the termination hearing, maintained contact with the mother, and had no concrete childcare plan.
- The circuit court found by clear and convincing evidence three termination grounds (including the subsequent-factors ground) and that termination was in the children’s best interest (children adoptable; potential harm if returned to father). The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Arkansas Supreme Court granted review and affirmed, vacating the court of appeals opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brandon) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved a statutory ground for termination (subsequent-factors) by clear and convincing evidence | Brandon argued he separated from mother in May 2015 and thus subsequent-factors ground not met | DHS argued Brandon maintained relationship with mother, failed to protect children, and did not remediate post-petition factors despite services | Court held DHS proved subsequent-factors ground; father’s testimony lacked credibility and showed continued contact and incapacity/indifference to protect children |
| Whether DHS offered appropriate family services | Brandon argued DHS failed to prove services were offered between May and Jan. hearing | DHS pointed to services offered (e.g., daycare vouchers) and that father did not take advantage of them | Court held DHS offered appropriate services and father’s failure to utilize them did not preclude termination |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest | Brandon argued no evidence he posed risk; he complied with case plan and was working | DHS argued children were adoptable and father’s unwillingness/ inability to protect them posed potential harm and instability | Court held termination was in children’s best interest (adoptability + potential harm if returned) |
| Preservation / ability to challenge sufficiency of evidence on appeal in civil bench trial | Brandon contended appellate review of sufficiency should be allowed despite not raising at trial | DHS and state argued prior reasonable-efforts findings were not appealed and limit review of those specific rulings | Court affirmed that sufficiency may be raised on appeal in civil bench trials but here upheld termination on the record; also noted unappealed earlier reasonable-efforts findings bind appellant |
Key Cases Cited
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243 (1997) (two-step framework for termination: statutory grounds then best interest)
- Brumley v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. 356 (2015) (de novo review and best-interest considerations for termination)
- Payne v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2013 Ark. 284 (2013) (standard for clear-and-convincing evidence and appellate review)
- Seago v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. 184 (2011) (definition of clearly erroneous in clear-and-convincing context)
- Bearden v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 317 (2001) (deference to trial court credibility determinations in termination cases)
- Contreras v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2014 Ark. 51 (2014) (civil bench-trial sufficiency preserved for appeal)
- Oates v. Oates, 340 Ark. 431 (2000) (civil-bench-trial sufficiency may be raised on appeal)
- Bass v. Koller, 276 Ark. 93 (1982) (same principle for civil bench trials)
- Earls v. Harvest Credit Mgmt. VI-B, LLC, 2015 Ark. 175 (2015) (treatment of appeals granted for review as if originally filed in the Supreme Court)
- Thompson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 124 (2012) (caseworker testimony sufficient to establish adoptability)
- Lewis v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 364 Ark. 243 (2005) (unappealed findings bind later appeals)