McNeer v. Ark Dep't of Human Servs.
529 S.W.3d 269
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- DHS opened services when McNeer’s twins were born with cocaine in their systems and later removed the children after officers found cocaine within reach in McNeer’s car and McNeer admitted recent drug use.
- Children adjudicated dependent-neglected; initial reunification occurred in mid‑2015 but was reversed after McNeer’s mental‑health and drug‑screen noncompliance and missed DHS contacts.
- McNeer was re‑adjudicated dependent‑neglected in March 2016; by September 2016 the permanency goal changed to adoption and DHS petitioned to terminate parental rights while McNeer was serving a prison sentence.
- Termination hearing included testimony from DHS caseworker, CASA volunteer/director, and the children’s therapist; reports indicated a relative had requested a home study and foster placement provided stability.
- The circuit court terminated McNeer’s parental rights; McNeer appealed only the best‑interest finding, arguing insufficient evidence of adoptability and lack of proof of potential harm from reunification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court adequately considered likelihood of adoptability | McNeer: no evidence at hearing established adoptability | DHS: evidence included CASA report, caseworker/CASA testimony, relative seeking home study; adoptability is one factor | Court: Affirmed — record contained evidence and statute requires consideration, not conclusive proof of adoptability |
| Whether returning children to McNeer posed potential harm | McNeer: strong parent–child bond and therapist recommended possible future visitation; insufficient proof of likely harm | DHS: evidence of ongoing substance abuse, instability, children’s anxiety, therapist reports children favored different home | Court: Affirmed — potential harm viewed prospectively; evidence of drug use and instability supported best‑interest finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 448 S.W.3d 735 (Ark. Ct. App.) (termination is extreme remedy; heavy burden on party seeking termination)
- Dade v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 503 S.W.3d 96 (Ark. Ct. App.) (de novo review but will not reverse unless findings are clearly erroneous)
- Renfro v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 385 S.W.3d 285 (Ark. Ct. App.) (adoptability is one factor in best‑interest analysis)
- Tucker v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 389 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. Ct. App.) (adoptability is not an essential element of termination)
- Kerr v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 493 S.W.3d 342 (Ark. Ct. App.) (reversal where no evidence of adoptability was introduced at hearing)
- Grant v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 378 S.W.3d 227 (Ark. Ct. App.) (addresses adequacy of adoptability evidence)
- Salazar v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 518 S.W.3d 713 (Ark. Ct. App.) (best‑interest finding must be supported by clear and convincing evidence)