Michelle Debiasse and Mark Debiasse v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children
651 S.W.3d 736
Ark. Ct. App.2022Background
- DHS removed three children in Sept. 2019 after nine-year-old B.D. disclosed sexual abuse; Michelle admitted knowledge of some touching and a boyfriend (Whitney) allegedly touched B.D.
- Children adjudicated dependent–neglected (Nov. 2019) for sexual abuse, neglect, and parental unfitness; parents given services and a reunification case plan.
- Michelle completed some services (counseling, parenting classes, psychological evaluation) but had no stable income or suitable housing and faced unresolved criminal charges related to the children; a no-contact order suspended visitation.
- Mark lived out-of-state, had little-to-no contact with DHS or the children, and for much of the case was incarcerated in New Jersey on child-pornography–related charges; he had never met the youngest child.
- DHS sought termination (Oct. 2020); after a hearing (Oct. 27, 2021) the circuit court terminated both parents’ rights on multiple statutory grounds; appeals followed.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo, requiring clear and convincing evidence of statutory grounds and best interest, and affirmed termination for both parents chiefly on the aggravated-circumstances ground.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Appellee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported terminating Michelle’s rights on aggravated-circumstances ground | Michelle: She completed case-plan services; DHS failed to maintain contact/inspect home, so no basis to find no further services could help | DHS: Michelle had unresolved criminal charges tied to the children, no-contact order prevented placement, lacked stable housing/income, and caseworker testified no further services would reunify | Affirmed: aggravated circumstances proven (no-contact order, unresolved charges, instability, and testimony that no further services would effect reunification) |
| Whether termination was in Michelle’s children’s best interest | Michelle: did not challenge best-interest finding on appeal | DHS: best interest supported by adoptability and potential harm on return | Court did not address on merits; Michelle waived challenge by not appealing the best-interest finding |
| Whether Mark was denied due process (right to counsel, service, communication) | Mark: DHS identified him as legal father but failed to appoint counsel, serve pleadings, or engage him; thus process defects fatally undermine termination | DHS: procedural objections were not preserved below; court had no duty to raise issues sua sponte on appeal | Not considered on merits: issues not preserved; appellate review refused to consider for first time on appeal |
| Whether evidence supported terminating Mark’s rights on aggravated-circumstances and best-interest grounds | Mark: DHS failed to provide services, didn’t investigate relatives, and lacked contact so termination improper | DHS: Mark’s long absence, out-of-state incarceration, lack of contact, and testimony that no further services could reunify support aggravated-circumstances and best-interest findings | Affirmed: aggravated circumstances proven by incarceration and prolonged non-contact; best-interest finding affirmed (challenges not preserved) |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (Ark. 2001) (standard of review and proof for termination cases)
- Jones v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 361 Ark. 164, 205 S.W.3d 778 (Ark. 2005) (issues not preserved below cannot be raised on appeal)
- Kohlman v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 544 S.W.3d 595 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018) (criminal misconduct/incarceration can support aggravated-circumstances finding)
- Redden v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 589 S.W.3d 401 (Ark. Ct. App. 2019) (only one statutory ground needed to affirm termination)
- Collier v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 641 S.W.3d 67 (Ark. Ct. App. 2022) (caseworker testimony that no further services could achieve reunification supports aggravated circumstances)
- Louissaint v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 611 S.W.3d 709 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020) (out-of-state parent’s failure to contact children supports aggravated-circumstances finding)