McKinney v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 475
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Children B.M. (born 2002) and A.M. (born 2012) were removed Nov. 2015 after allegations of inadequate supervision and parental drug use; appellant Max McKinney tested positive for methamphetamine.
- DHS adjudicated the children dependent-neglected (Dec. 2015); appellant was found to have contributed to the neglect and was ordered to comply with a case plan (reunification goal).
- Appellant had inconsistent participation: intermittent drug screens, multiple rehab attempts (several uncompleted), periods of incarceration, outstanding warrants, and no proof of stable housing or income. He married the children’s mother after her parental rights were terminated.
- DHS filed to terminate appellant’s parental rights (Sept. 2016) alleging abandonment and subsequent factors (criminal issues, continued drug use, failure to complete services).
- The circuit court terminated appellant’s rights (Jan. 2017; amended Feb. 2017), finding other subsequent factors and best-interest grounds proven; appellant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to hold a permanency‑planning hearing before a TPR hearing was reversible error | McKinney: statutory "shall" requires a permanency‑planning hearing and failure is error | DHS: statute allows TPR petition to be filed/considered without prior permanency hearing; no remedy required | Court: Circuit court erred by not holding any permanency‑planning hearing, but refusal to reverse given lack of statutory remedy and children’s best interests/time in care |
| Whether statutory ground of "other subsequent factors" was proven | McKinney: drug use alone is not a subsequent factor; insufficient evidence | DHS: subsequent factors existed post‑petition (criminal charges, incarcerations, continued drug use, marriage to mother whose rights were terminated) | Court: Other subsequent factors were shown (criminal issues, incarcerations, marriage) and supported termination |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interest (adoptability & potential harm) | McKinney: insufficient evidence of adoptability and potential harm | DHS: caseworker testimony supported adoptability; ongoing substance abuse, instability, incarceration showed potential harm | Court: Best‑interest finding affirmed—caseworker testimony supported adoptability; appellant’s instability and drug use supported potential harm |
| Whether abandonment ground was supported | McKinney: not argued on appeal | DHS: alleged abandonment due to lack of visits and warrants | Court: Circuit court granted appellant’s motion to dismiss abandonment ground at trial (abandonment not established) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamilton v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 501 S.W.3d 406 (summary of TPR proof standards)
- Walters v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 72 S.W.3d 533 (statutory construction: "shall" means mandatory)
- Burkett v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 507 S.W.3d 530 (children’s best interests and permanency priority)
- Jackson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 503 S.W.3d 122 (continuing parental drug use demonstrates potential harm)
- Whittiker v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 469 S.W.3d 396 (considering past behavior as predictor of future harm)