Nespor v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
387 S.W.3d 239
Ark. Ct. App.2011Background
- In May 2011, the Baxter County Circuit Court terminated Nespor's parental rights to L.N.; Nespor appeals challenging lack of stated grounds in the judgment.
- DHS initially sought emergency custody in January 2010 after Nespor tested positive for THC while breastfeeding L.N.; a pending protective-services matter involving Nespor’s other children existed.
- The trial court granted emergency custody (Jan. 14, 2010) and found probable cause to believe L.N. was dependent-neglected (Jan. 27, 2010).
- Nespor did not attend the February 1, 2010 adjudication; she later was incarcerated and unable to attend a May 27, 2010 review, though reunification remained the goal.
- DHS filed a termination petition on September 9, 2010, alleging a subsequent-issues ground under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a) and other failures to comply with the case plan.
- At the termination hearing, evidence showed Nespor abandoned L.N., had no stable income or housing, failed to participate in services, and L.N. was adoptable and in need of permanence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must the written judgment cite the exact statutory ground? | Nespor: judgment fails to state statutory ground or language. | DHS/State: oral findings and petition basis show intended ground. | Not reversible; intention clear despite missing exact language. |
| Whether the trial court's reliance on the subsequent-issues ground is evident from the record and judgment | Nespor: judgment does not specify the ground clearly. | DHS: oral and written findings indicate reliance on subseq-issues ground § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a). | Yes; the record shows intent to rely on the subsequent-issues ground. |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination | Nespor contests evidence sufficiency? | DHS: evidence shows failure to comply with case plan, abandonment, and danger to L.N. | Yes; the evidence supports termination under the statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Porter v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 246 (Ark. App. 2010) (termination standards; intent evident despite not quoting exact language)