Meredith v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 120
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In April 2015 J.M., then five months old, was adjudicated dependent-neglected and placed in foster care; reunification with mother Terry Meredith was the initial case goal.
- DHS provided extensive reunification services (including drug/alcohol assessment and treatment referrals, supervised visitation, parenting classes, housing assistance, and case management), but Terry frequently missed services and visits.
- At a February 2016 permanency-planning hearing the court found Terry incoherent and drug-positive (amphetamines, methamphetamine, MDMA), changed the goal to adoption, and Terry failed earlier orders to complete inpatient rehab and parenting classes.
- After the permanency hearing Terry later completed an inpatient rehabilitation program and had over 60 days’ sobriety at the termination hearing; she also obtained employment, disability benefits, housing, a fiancé, and increased visitation.
- DHS presented evidence of repeated prior drug use, arrests, continued instability, and the foster parents’ commitment to adopt; the court concluded returning J.M. to Terry posed a substantial risk of harm and terminated parental rights in August 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Meredith's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of Meredith’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest | Meredith urged the court to delay termination to consider her recent sobriety and progress toward reunification | DHS argued longstanding drug use, instability, noncompliance, and low likelihood of successful reunification warranted termination | Court affirmed: best-interest finding supported by clear and convincing evidence; termination not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheney v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 396 S.W.3d 272 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (standard of review in termination appeals; deference to circuit court credibility findings)
- Dinkins v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 40 S.W.3d 286 (Ark. 2001) (termination must be based on clear and convincing evidence)
- Pratt v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 413 S.W.3d 261 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Gossett v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 374 S.W.3d 205 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (only one statutory ground required to terminate parental rights)