Myers v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2011 Ark. 182
| Ark. | 2011Background
- Six TACM children were removed after a October 2008 FBI/Arkansas State Police raid on the Fouke compound, triggering emergency custody and dependency-neglect proceedings.
- By February 27, 2009, the court adjudicated the children dependent-neglected and ordered DHS to pursue reunification with case-plan measures (housing, employment, supervision, schooling, immunizations, housing separate from TACM).
- By December 8, 2009, permanency planning shifted to termination of parental rights for two younger sons due to ongoing noncompliance and continued exposure to TACM.
- In January 2010, DHS sought termination of parental rights; appellant argued that Tony Alamo’s imprisonment changed circumstances and that the religious exercise and related case-plan requirements infringed her rights.
- At a January 27, 2010 termination hearing, taped conversations involving Tony Alamo were admitted over objection as business records; DHS sought to prove Alamo’s continued control of TACM.
- The court ultimately terminated Bethany Myers’ rights as to her two younger sons, finding a compelling state interest in protecting children and that housing/employment requirements did not unduly burden free exercise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case plan burden on free exercise was improper | Myers argues strict-scrutiny applies and benefits must prevail due to religion. | Neutral housing/employment requirements advance child safety and are not targeted at religion. | No strict-scrutiny required; neutral, generally applicable housing/employment rules survive. |
| Admission of Tony Alamo telephone recordings | Recordings were hearsay and inadmissible; misclassified as business records. | Recordings show Alamo’s continued control; not offered for truth of statements but to prove control. | Recordings not hearsay; admissible to show control; business-records label not dispositive. |
| Sufficiency and grounds for termination of parental rights | There was no showing of imminent danger or individual abuse to Myers' children; termination was speculative. | Court properly found continued risk and parental incapacity; grounds met under §9-27-341(b)(3)(B). | termination supported by clear and convincing evidence and best interest findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (neutral, generally applicable laws need not overcome strict scrutiny)
- Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) (state may regulate parental control to protect children's welfare)
- Welch v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 290 (Ark. 2010) (protective housing requirements incidental to religious exercise upheld)
- Carroll v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 148 S.W.3d 780 (Ark. 2004) (child welfare considerations permit state intervention)
- Seago v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 360 S.W.3d 733 (Ark. 2009) (court may act preemptively to protect dependent children)
- Brewer v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 43 S.W.3d 196 (Ark. App. 2001) (protective action consistent with child welfare and best interests)
- Thorne v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 374 S.W.3d 912 (Ark. 2010) (case-plan restrictions may be narrowly tailored to protect children)
- Thome v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 374 S.W.3d 912 (Ark. 2010) (overruled to the extent relying on strict-scrutiny analysis)
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 40 S.W.3d 286 (Ark. 2001) (deference to trial judge's factual credibility in termination cases)