McLemore v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
540 S.W.3d 730
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- Mother (McLemore) had prior noncompliance in a DHS protective-services case; she had stipulated to probable cause and adjudication of her child L.S. as dependent-neglected due to parental unfitness.
- DHS moved to terminate McLemore’s parental rights to L.S. on aggravated-circumstances grounds and on best-interest grounds; a termination hearing was held while McLemore was incarcerated.
- At the hearing McLemore testified she had received substance-abuse counseling and reached step four of an in-prison drug-treatment program and expected imminent release, but she denied that drug use had affected her parenting.
- The trial court found little likelihood that further services would lead to reunification, concluded reunification could not occur within a reasonable time from the child’s perspective, and determined termination was in L.S.’s best interest.
- McLemore appealed, arguing DHS failed to prove aggravated circumstances, that the court relied improperly on the protective-services case, and that the court speculated about potential harm rather than relying on admissible evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved aggravated circumstances such that reunification services were unlikely to succeed | McLemore: DHS relied improperly on noncompliance in the protective-services case (no valid case plan) and had to show services were offered in this case | DHS: Prior noncompliance and current evidence about substance abuse and reunification prospects support aggravated-circumstances finding | Court: Affirmed — prior noncompliance was properly considered and other evidence supported finding that further services were unlikely to permit reunification |
| Whether trial court improperly required DHS to prove provision of meaningful reunification services | McLemore: DHS must prove meaningful services were offered here | DHS: Law does not require proof of meaningful services; court must find more than speculation that services would fail | Court: Agrees DHS need not have shown meaningful services; court avoided mere speculation and had sufficient evidence |
| Whether termination was against child’s best interest because court speculated about potential harm | McLemore: Court relied on speculation and failed to consider her progress, release plans, and sibling impact | DHS: Court may consider past behavior as predictor of future harm and need for permanency now | Court: Held trial court did not clearly err; potential-harm standard permits forward-looking inference and child’s need for permanency justified termination |
| Whether DHS should have delayed termination pending search for relative placement | McLemore: DHS rushed termination instead of preserving familial bonds and seeking relative placement first | DHS: Statutory permanency preference places adoption before relative custody; DHS pursued reasonable efforts | Court: Held DHS acted within authority and court appropriately ordered continued exploration of permanent placements while terminating parental rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Willis v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 538 S.W.3d 842 (2017) (aggravated-circumstances ground does not require proof of meaningful services)
- Yarborough v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 240 S.W.3d 626 (2006) (court must do more than merely predict that services will fail)
- Harbin v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 451 S.W.3d 231 (2014) (past parental behavior may be considered as predictor of likely potential harm)
- Helvey v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 501 S.W.3d 398 (2016) (statutory permanency goals list adoption before permanent custody with a relative)
- Henderson v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 377 S.W.3d 362 (2010) (a child’s need for permanency may override a parent’s request for more time while rehabilitation is ongoing)