Miller v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
525 S.W.3d 48
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Two children, D.C. (male, born 3/31/2005) and D.C. (female, born 1/4/2015), were removed from parents Brandi Miller and Dana Crosby after repeated domestic incidents, parental substance use, noncompliance with case plans, and the infant testing positive for multiple illegal substances while in parental care.
- DHS became involved in late 2013 (male child) and 2015 (female child); the case involved long-term services, multiple permanency hearings, and transfers between counties.
- The parents repeatedly failed to complete ordered services (drug/alcohol assessments and testing, parenting and domestic-violence classes, counseling), had continued positive drug tests (THC and other substances), missed visits, and had unstable employment/housing and unpaid child support.
- DHS filed petitions for termination of parental rights; trial court found statutory grounds (including the “subsequent factors” ground) proven and concluded termination was in the children’s best interest considering adoptability and potential harm.
- Brandi challenged only the adoptability finding; Dana challenged the statutory grounds (subsequent factors / twelve-month failure) and the potential-harm prong of best interest.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed termination as to both parents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in finding the children likely to be adopted (Brandi) | Brandi: adoptability prong not supported by sufficient evidence | DHS: family-service worker testified both children were adoptable and bonded to pre-adoptive foster families | Court: Affirmed — testimony supported trial court’s conclusion that adoption was likely |
| Whether statutory grounds and potential-harm supported termination (Dana) | Dana: DHS failed to prove statutory grounds; argued lack of drug screens means no proof of continued substance use; claimed efforts to contact caseworkers and maintain visits show compliance and stability | DHS: presented evidence of long-term noncompliance with court orders and case plan (failure to complete assessments/classes, continued positive drug tests, missed contacts/visits, unpaid support), supporting subsequent-factors ground and showing potential harm if children returned | Court: Affirmed — evidence supported the “subsequent factors” ground and the potential-harm prong; one statutory ground sufficed to find parental unfitness |
Key Cases Cited
- Harbin v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 451 S.W.3d 231 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (standard for two-step termination analysis and best-interest considerations)
- Sharks v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 502 S.W.3d 569 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (potential-harm analysis may be broad and need not identify specific future harm)