Miller v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2015 Ark. App. 727
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Amanda Miller appealed the termination of her parental rights to three daughters after DHS filed for emergency custody when A.C. (age 10) disclosed repeated sexual abuse by Amanda’s husband, William.
- Recorded interviews with A.C. and E.M. included detailed disclosures; the trial court found A.C.’s testimony very credible and adjudicated the children dependent-neglected on December 18, 2014.
- Amanda consistently denied the abuse, claimed she never believed A.C., and refused to separate from William; she said counseling would not change her view.
- DHS petitioned to terminate Amanda’s parental rights; at the termination hearing the court found clear and convincing evidence of statutory grounds including aggravated circumstances (little likelihood services would reunify) and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
- The trial court emphasized Amanda’s ongoing denial, lack of protective action, emotional detachment from A.C., and behaviors (e.g., disposing of children’s belongings, removing carpet) suggesting risk if reunification were attempted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Amanda) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination were proved | Petition failed to give notice of neglect-based sexual-abuse ground; DHS did not offer counseling so other-factor and aggravated-circumstances grounds are unsupported | At least one statutory ground exists (aggravated circumstances: little likelihood services will achieve reunification) based on Amanda’s persistent denial and failure to protect | Court affirmed: aggravated-circumstances ground proven by clear and convincing evidence; termination affirmed |
| Whether DHS’s failure to offer counseling to Amanda defeats grounds based on services | Amanda: lack of offered counseling means DHS did not meet requirement tied to "offer of appropriate family services" | DHS: evidence shows Amanda’s entrenched denial and lack of responsiveness; services would be unlikely to succeed | Court held DHS was not required to show particular services would succeed; Amanda’s denial supported finding that services were unlikely to effect reunification |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 430 S.W.3d 851 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013) (standard of review for termination appeals)
- Anderson v. Douglas, 839 S.W.2d 196 (Ark. 1992) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 947 S.W.2d 761 (Ark. 1997) (appellate review standard for findings proved by clear and convincing evidence)
- Yarborough v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 240 S.W.3d 626 (Ark. Ct. App. 2006) (definition of when a finding is "clearly erroneous")
- M.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 952 S.W.2d 177 (Ark. Ct. App. 1997) (statutory requirement that grounds and best interest be proved by clear and convincing evidence)