Miguel Campos v. Arkansas Department of Human Services And S.M. and M.C.
644 S.W.3d 465
Ark. Ct. App.2022Background
- DHS removed two children from mother after drug exposure; Campos was consistently identified in filings as a putative father (not an adjudicated/established parent).
- Throughout dependency proceedings the court listed Campos as a putative parent; the court ordered services for him and appointed counsel but never entered an order finding he was a legal parent.
- DHS filed to terminate parental rights alleging statutory grounds that apply to a "parent" (dependency out of custody 12+ months and subsequent factors making return contrary to health/safety).
- At the termination hearing DHS and the caseworker argued Campos failed to comply with the case plan; DHS asserted a default paternity judgment but introduced no documentary proof at the hearing.
- The trial court terminated Campos’s parental rights, finding one statutory ground proven, but did not make an express finding that Campos was a "parent" under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(41).
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that termination requires an express court finding that the person is a "parent" before parental rights can be terminated.
Issues
| Issue | Campos's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds that apply only to a "parent" can support termination when the court never found the man to be a legal "parent" | Termination invalid because trial court never found him to be a parent as defined in Juvenile Code; hence grounds do not apply | DHS relied on statements about a default paternity judgment and practice of treating him as father; argued rights had attached | Reversed — court must expressly find parental status before terminating rights; here no such finding and all orders called him a putative parent |
| Whether indicators (self-identification, counsel appointment, alleged default paternity, or DNA probability) suffice without an express court finding | Such indicators are insufficient; an express judicial determination of parental status is required | DHS urged that evidence and court practice demonstrated parental status even without an explicit finding | Held insufficient — consistent precedent requires an express finding that the person is a parent for termination to proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Earls v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 518 S.W.3d 81 (2017) (termination reversed where record lacked an order establishing legal parental status despite putative/biological indications)
- Northcross v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 550 S.W.3d 919 (2018) (reversed termination because court never entered a finding that putative father was a legal parent)
- Burks v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 634 S.W.3d 527 (2021) (trial court must resolve legal-parent status before terminating parental rights)
- Terry v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 591 S.W.3d 824 (2019) (self-identification or high-probability DNA is insufficient; an express court finding of parenthood is required)
- Dreher v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 639 S.W.3d 899 (2022) (reinforcing that termination cannot proceed absent an express finding that the man is a parent)