Mitchell v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2013 Ark. App. 715
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Parents Amanda and John Mitchell had a long history with DHS, including prior removals for inadequate supervision, substance abuse, and domestic violence.
- Children removed March 13, 2012, after Amanda was found intoxicated and injured; subsequent incidents showed ongoing domestic violence and severe injury to Amanda by John.
- Court adjudicated children dependent/neglected; parents were offered reunification services including substance‑abuse treatment, counseling, parenting classes, and stable housing requirements.
- John later convicted of felony domestic battery and incarcerated; Amanda repeatedly failed to comply with case plan, had unstable housing (five residences since removal), continued alcohol abuse, and limited visitation.
- DHS terminated reunification services and sought termination of parental rights; trial court found statutory grounds (aggravated circumstances/little likelihood of reunification) and best interest proven by clear and convincing evidence and terminated both parents’ rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the children’s best interest | Amanda: She completed inpatient rehab, is taking parenting classes, intends to separate from John, and should be given more time to provide a stable home | DHS: Amanda remained unstable, continued alcohol abuse, lacked suitable housing, failed services/visits, and children need permanency | Court: Affirmed — best interest established by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether a statutory ground existed (aggravated circumstances / little likelihood of reunification) | Amanda: Challenges statutory requirements generally in conclusion | DHS: Shows post‑petition factors, continued parental incapacity/indifference, and John’s felony/domestic abuse supporting aggravated circumstances | Court: Affirmed — one statutory ground proved (9‑27‑341(b)(3)(B)(ix)) |
| Whether John’s appeal had arguable merit and whether counsel may withdraw | John (via counsel): No-merit appeal filed; counsel seeks withdrawal under Linker‑Flores procedures | DHS: Opposes reversal; evidence of aggravated circumstances and incarceration support termination | Court: Agrees appeal is wholly without merit and grants counsel’s motion to withdraw |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (standard of review for termination appeals)
- M.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 58 Ark. App. 302, 952 S.W.2d 177 (clear‑and‑convincing proof requirement)
- Anderson v. Douglas, 310 Ark. 633, 839 S.W.2d 196 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (appellate review of factual findings)
- Yarborough v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 96 Ark. App. 247, 240 S.W.3d 626 (clearly erroneous standard explained)
- Dozier v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 17, 372 S.W.3d 849 (child’s need for permanency can outweigh parent’s request for more time)
- Renfro v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 419, 385 S.W.3d 285 (adoptability is only one factor in best‑interest analysis)
- Childress v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 322, 307 S.W.3d 50 (best‑interest and proof standards)
- Hughes v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 526 (proof of a single statutory ground is sufficient for termination)
- Linker‑Flores v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (procedure for counsel withdrawal in no‑merit appeals)