McNeer v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
529 S.W.3d 269
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mother Johna McNeer has a long DHS history: twins born with cocaine in their systems; DHS removed children after officers found possible cocaine in McNeer’s car and she admitted likely recent drug use.
- Children adjudicated dependent-neglected; case plan set for reunification but McNeer repeatedly failed drug screens, missed meetings, and was in and out of treatment and rehabs.
- Court briefly returned custody in mid-2015 after McNeer completed a program, but DHS removed the children again in Nov. 2015 after continued instability and missed drug screens.
- McNeer later was incarcerated on a four-year sentence tied to probation revocation and drug-related offenses; permanency goal changed to adoption and DHS petitioned to terminate parental rights.
- At the termination hearing DHS presented caseworker and CASA testimony, CASA and DHS reports (including a relative’s interest in adoption), and testimony from the children’s therapist; the circuit court terminated McNeer’s parental rights as being in the children’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by failing to prove adoptability | McNeer: no evidence at hearing established children were likely adoptable | DHS: adoptability need only be considered; evidence (caseworker, CASA reports, relative interested in adoption, foster placement) sufficed | Court: Affirmed — evidence of adoptability was presented and statute requires consideration, not proof of likelihood |
| Whether returning children posed potential harm | McNeer: strong bond with children; therapist suggested possible future visitation; evidence insufficient to show potential harm | DHS: continued drug use and instability create forward-looking potential harm and lack of permanency | Court: Affirmed — testimony showed ongoing drug addiction, instability, children’s anxiety, and therapist statements supporting need for resolution; potential harm need not be specifically quantified |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 448 S.W.3d 735 (Ark. App. 2014) (termination is an extreme remedy; heavy burden on party seeking termination)
- T.J. v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 947 S.W.2d 761 (Ark. 1997) (two-step termination test: statutory grounds and best interest)
- Dade v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 503 S.W.3d 96 (Ark. App. 2016) (appellate standard of review and clearly erroneous rule)
- Renfro v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 385 S.W.3d 285 (Ark. App. 2011) (adoptability is one factor in best-interest analysis)
- McFarland v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 210 S.W.3d 143 (Ark. App. 2005) (adoptability not dispositive of termination)
- Grant v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 227 (Ark. App. 2010) (inadequate evidence of adoptability can require reversal)
- Kerr v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 493 S.W.3d 342 (Ark. App. 2016) (reversal where no evidence supported adoptability finding)
- Davis v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 370 S.W.3d 283 (Ark. App. 2009) (continued parental drug use supports finding of potential harm)
- Carroll v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 148 S.W.3d 780 (Ark. App. 2004) (drug use as evidence of potential harm)