Norton v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2017 Ark. App. 285
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Father (William Norton) appealed pro se after the Green County Circuit Court terminated his parental rights to A.N. (b. June 6, 2015); counsel filed a no-merit brief and moved to withdraw.
- Norton previously had his parental rights involuntarily terminated to a sibling, S.N.; that prior termination was affirmed in Norton v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs.
- A.N. and sibling resided with foster parents who expressed a desire to adopt the children as a sibling group; DHS supervisors testified the foster home was appropriate for adoption.
- Norton exhibited lethargic, often unintelligible courtroom testimony; he admitted ongoing illegal substance use, lived in an unsuitable home, and said he believed his rights should be terminated.
- A drug test administered during the proceedings returned negative; DHS witness was asked whether she would place a child with a parent who displayed Norton’s courtroom demeanor and answered she would be concerned; the court overruled an objection to that testimony.
- The appellate court reviewed whether statutory grounds and best-interest findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence and found the appeal to be without merit; counsel’s motion to withdraw was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DHS) | Defendant's Argument (Norton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination exist | Prior involuntary termination of parental rights to a sibling constitutes a statutory ground | Norton did not dispute the prior termination ground | Statutory ground exists due to prior involuntary termination (affirmed) |
| Whether termination is in child's best interest — adoptability | Foster parents want to adopt; placement is stable and appropriate | Norton offered no challenge to adoptability; expressed that foster family should adopt | Child likely to be adopted; supports termination (affirmed) |
| Whether potential harm from returning child to Norton was shown | Norton’s substance use, unsuitable housing, courtroom demeanor, and admissions show risk of harm | Norton points to a negative drug test and did not press defenses; no persuasive rebuttal | DHS produced sufficient evidence of potential harm (affirmed) |
| Evidentiary objection to lay witness hypothetical about drug use/demeanor | DHS witness may assess demeanor and placement decisions; testimony relevant | Norton objected that the hypothetical was improper for a lay witness | Trial court properly allowed the testimony as relevant to placement; objection overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (procedural standard for no-merit appeals in termination cases)
- Houseman v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 491 S.W.3d 153 (explains two-step termination process and clear-and-convincing proof requirement)
- Dunbar v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 503 S.W.3d 821 (appellate review is de novo; clearly erroneous standard for factual findings)
- Brumley v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. 356 (trial court credibility determinations warrant deference)
- Norton v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs. & Minor Child, 481 S.W.3d 780 (prior involuntary termination of parental rights to a sibling constitutes a statutory ground for later termination)