2013 Ark. App. 479
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- DHS removed C.M. (b. 2001) and M.M. (b. 1999) from their mother on Dec. 22, 2010; Nicholas Morrison (father) lived in Heavener, OK and was disabled.
- Temporary custody placed with Cecilia Costanzo; DHS opened an ICPC home-study for placement with Morrison and required compliance with a case plan (housing, transportation, ICPC completion, parenting, budgeting, etc.).
- Children were adjudicated dependent-neglected in March 2011 based on risks created by the mother’s partner and parental failure to protect/supervise. The case initially targeted reunification with the mother and joint custody for Morrison.
- An Oklahoma home study in mid-2011 initially recommended placement with Morrison, but DHS later ended the ICPC placement (Jan. 27, 2012) citing treatment, condition of juveniles, and living conditions in Morrison’s home. Problems included unsanitary/messy home, an untreated deep cut on M.M.’s foot, inadequate supervision (knife and fireworks incidents), and concerns about household income and number of occupants.
- After about two years of involvement and provision of services, DHS changed the permanent plan to termination and adoption; the trial court terminated Morrison’s parental rights, finding clear-and-convincing evidence that return would be contrary to the children’s health, safety, or welfare and that reunification was unlikely despite services.
Issues
| Issue | Morrison's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests | Termination not shown; insufficient evidence of potential harm; problems were isolated or remediable; continued reunification services should continue | Termination supported: ongoing parenting, supervision, income, and environmental problems; ICPC denial; children are adoptable; services were reasonable and meaningful | Affirmed — trial court’s best-interest finding was not clearly erroneous; termination appropriate |
| Significance of Oklahoma DHS refusal to approve ICPC home study | ICPC denial should not be relied on to deny reunification; home issues were isolated | ICPC denial reflected ongoing safety/environmental concerns and supported finding that placement was unsafe | Court accepted ICPC denial as probative; these facts supported termination |
| Whether compliance with the case plan required termination denial | Morrison pointed to substantial case-plan compliance and improvements at home | DHS: compliance alone is not dispositive if root causes remain and parent cannot provide safe home | Court held case-plan completion is not dispositive; Morrison never proved capability to safely parent |
| Adoptability and permanency considerations | Morrison emphasized bond and request for continued reunification/contact | DHS emphasized children’s thriving in foster care, adoptability, potential harm from return, and need for permanency after long delay | Court found adoption likely and permanency concerns supported termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Blackerby v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 373 S.W.3d 375 (Ark. App. 2009) (termination is an extreme remedy; heavy burden on petitioner)
- Camarillo-Cox v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 201 S.W.3d 391 (Ark. 2005) (parental-rights termination standards and burden of proof)
- Cariker v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 385 S.W.3d 859 (Ark. App. 2011) (potential-harm inquiry focuses broadly on health and safety risk from continued contact)
- Cole v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 394 S.W.3d 318 (Ark. App. 2012) (completion of case plan alone does not require denial of termination if underlying problems persist)
- Rhine v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 386 S.W.3d 577 (Ark. App. 2011) (court cannot order post-termination visitation with a parent)
- Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (parental rights termination is total and irrevocable)