Metcalf v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2015 Ark. App. 402
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- DHS filed emergency custody and dependency-neglect petition after Angela Metcalf was arrested on methamphetamine-related charges while her daughter A.P. was in the car; Metcalf tested positive for methamphetamine.
- Court adjudicated A.P. dependent-neglected and initially set reunification as the case goal.
- DNA/paternity was established for Jonathan Phillips; DHS recommended placing A.P. temporarily with Phillips due to his stable housing, employment, and supportive role.
- Evidence showed Phillips provided stability: steady housing, employment, tutoring for A.P., and A.P. thriving academically and socially in his care.
- Evidence showed Metcalf had housing instability, part-time low-wage work, missed/supervised visitation issues, inconsistent communication with DHS, pending criminal charges, and incomplete therapy compliance.
- The circuit court granted permanent legal custody to Phillips seven months after removal, closed the case, and set visitation for Metcalf; Metcalf appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and premature termination of reunification efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Metcalf) | Defendant's Argument (DHS/Phillips) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether granting permanent custody to father was in child’s best interest | Metcalf: she substantially complied with case plan, obtained stable housing/job, and needed more time under reunification goal | DHS/Phillips: Metcalf remained recently unstable, inconsistent with DHS, had pending charges; Phillips provided stability and child’s preference favored father | Court: Affirmed—placement with Phillips was in child’s best interest |
| Whether decision was premature at 7-month mark of a 12-month plan | Metcalf: awarding custody at 7 months was inconsistent with reunification goal and her progress | DHS/Phillips: best interest overrides strict calendar; evidence supported permanency now | Court: Timing acceptable—best interest controls; no clear error |
| Whether evidence of mother’s compliance with case plan was sufficient | Metcalf: points to clean drug screens, parenting classes, recent employment, and repaired vehicle | DHS/Phillips: compliance was partial/inconsistent (missed therapy, poor communication, missed visits) and recent improvements insufficient | Court: Found mother’s progress minimal and recent; not enough to rebut concerns |
| Weight of child’s preference and current placement status | Metcalf: child should be reunified with mother | DHS/Phillips: child expressed desire to live with father and was flourishing in his care | Court: Child’s preference and flourishing in father’s home supported custody to Phillips |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 419 S.W.3d 734 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings in juvenile custody cases)
- Keckler v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 383 S.W.3d 912 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011) (court may transfer custody to a relative if in child’s best interest)
- Bamburg v. Bamburg, 386 S.W.3d 31 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011) (best interest of the child is paramount over procedural timing)