Meisch v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Child
577 S.W.3d 444
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Child J.S. (born ~2016) was emergency-removed in June 2017 after allegations that mother Stephanie Meisch was using methamphetamine, acting erratically, and exposing the infant to drugs; Meisch had prior terminations of parental rights to four children in Arizona.
- The juvenile court adjudicated J.S. dependent-neglected (June 27, 2017) and imposed a case plan requiring substance-abuse treatment, counseling, parenting classes, visitation, stable housing, and contact with DHS/DCFS.
- Meisch failed to comply with the case plan, ceased meaningful contact and visitation, and relocated to Arizona in February 2018; she had not seen J.S. in over a year by the TPR hearing and had limited communication with DHS.
- DHS filed a petition to terminate parental rights (TPR) alleging multiple statutory grounds, including twelve-month removal with willful failure to maintain meaningful contact or provide material support, and abandonment; DHS sought termination as being in the child’s best interest with adoption as the permanency plan.
- At the September 4, 2018 TPR hearing Meisch testified she had been sober since moving to Arizona, completed some services there, and sought more time; the court found her testimony not credible, found statutory grounds proven, and concluded termination was in J.S.’s best interest.
- The Faulkner County Circuit Court entered a TPR order (Sept. 21, 2018); Meisch appealed, counsel moved to withdraw on no-merit grounds, and the appellate court affirmed and granted withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Meisch) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to terminate parental rights | Meisch argued her testimony (sobriety, services in Arizona, intent to reunify) was uncontroverted and demonstrated remediation or need for more time | DHS argued statutory grounds were met and returning the child posed potential harm; adoption was likely | Affirmed — evidence (statutory grounds + best-interest factors) supported TPR by clear and convincing evidence |
| Best-interest of the child (adoptability and potential harm) | Meisch argued sobriety and stability showed no harm and justified reunification | DHS showed foster parents desired adoption and that returning J.S. to Meisch presented forward-looking potential harm and instability | Affirmed — likelihood of adoption and potential harm supported termination |
| Willful failure to maintain meaningful contact (12-month ground) | Meisch said she tried to contact DHS, sent a package, and sought ICPC placement for her mother; she claimed inability to travel or coordinate interstate services | DHS pointed to Meisch’s prolonged absence, lack of visitation, failure to complete services, and minimal contact while case was pending | Affirmed — Meisch willfully failed to maintain meaningful contact; this statutory ground supported TPR |
| Two adverse evidentiary rulings at trial (lease question; credibility impeachment by prior testimony) | Meisch objected to foundation/speculation (lease names) and improper impeachment via prior testimony of her mother | DHS and the ad litem argued the questions probed witness knowledge and credibility; any error was harmless given overwhelming record | Affirmed — rulings provided no meritorious basis for appeal; any error was not reversible given the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Linker-Flores v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (Ark. 2004) (procedural standards for appointed counsel and appellate review in TPR appeals)
- Riggs v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 575 S.W.3d 129 (Ark. App. 2019) (standard of review for TPR: de novo; best-interest factors include adoptability and potential harm)
- Albright v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 248 S.W.3d 498 (Ark. App. 2007) (only one statutory ground is required to support TPR)
- Mayfield v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 198 S.W.3d 541 (Ark. App. 2004) (moving out of state and limited visits can constitute willful failure to maintain meaningful contact)
- Crawford v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 951 S.W.2d 310 (Ark. 1997) (discontinuation of court-ordered visitation supports finding of willful failure to maintain contact)
- Posey v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 262 S.W.3d 159 (Ark. 2007) (leaving the state instead of securing local employment and foregoing visitation supports willful failure to maintain contact)
- Harbin v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 451 S.W.3d 231 (Ark. App. 2014) (potential harm found where parent’s relationships and eleventh-hour compliance raised concerns)
- Stockstill v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 439 S.W.3d 95 (Ark. App. 2014) (potential harm supported by uncertain housing, missed visitation, and lack of early participation)
- Reed v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 375 S.W.3d 709 (Ark. App. 2010) (case illustrating sufficiency of evidence as to likelihood of adoption for best-interest analysis)
- Dowdy v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 314 S.W.3d 722 (Ark. App. 2009) (harm analysis under best-interest is forward-looking and broadly framed)