Mercado v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 232
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Three-month-old A.M. was placed on a 72-hour DHS hold after Arkansas Children’s Hospital found multiple fractures, head trauma, brain damage, and a subdural hematoma.
- DHS obtained a probable-cause order and continued custody; Dr. Karen Farst (child-abuse pediatrician) testified the injuries were near-fatal and indicative of physical abuse.
- DHS moved to terminate reunification services; the circuit court adjudicated A.M. dependent-neglected, set adoption as the goal, and granted DHS’s motion to terminate services.
- Appellant Francesca Mercado sought a second medical-expert review (an independent expert opinion) and petitioned the court for one; the circuit court denied that petition.
- The court attached Rule 54(b) certificates to the adjudication/termination orders and to the order denying the second-expert petition; Mercado appealed solely the denial of the separate medical expert.
- Mercado argued she was denied the tools of an adequate defense (invoking Ake and an ineffective-assistance theory) because she could not afford a second expert; the circuit court denied relief and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant was entitled to a court-ordered second medical expert | Mercado: denial deprived her of ability to present alternative causation theory and adequate defense (analogizing to Ake) | DHS: no authority requiring appointment of a second expert; issues not preserved or supported | Court affirmed denial — no convincing authority or preserved due-process/ineffective-assistance claim |
| Whether ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is reviewable on appeal | Mercado: counsel was hampered without funds for an expert | DHS: claim not preserved because not raised/developed in circuit court | Court: not preserved; appellate review rejected |
| Whether due process/fundamental-fairness claim is preserved | Mercado: due process violated by denying expert | DHS: not raised at earliest opportunity | Court: unpreserved; will not address |
| Standard of appellate review for juvenile proceedings | N/A (context) | N/A | Court applies de novo review but will not reverse unless findings are clearly erroneous; gives deference to circuit court credibility determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) (indigent criminal defendant entitled to basic tools of an adequate defense, such as psychiatric assistance in certain circumstances)
- Rodriguez v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 360 Ark. 180 (2004) (assignments of error unsupported by argument or authority need not be considered)
- Taffner v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2016 Ark. 231 (2016) (ineffective-assistance claims must be raised and developed in circuit court to be preserved for appeal)