Ogborn v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 600
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Allegations arose that three children were confined, underfed, and living in poor environmental conditions; Arkansas DHS removed the children and initiated proceedings.
- Three parallel actions followed: dependency-neglect adjudication (Benton County Circuit Court), criminal prosecution (acquittal on remaining charge), and a child-maltreatment registration decision by DHS/CACD to place Ogborn on the central registry.
- At the dependency-neglect adjudication Ogborn stipulated; the court received affidavits, photos, and medical records and found dependency-neglect for inadequate food, malnutrition, environmental neglect, and repeated/extreme cruelty; Ogborn did not appeal.
- CACD issued a true finding and DHS filed to place Ogborn on the child-maltreatment central registry; Ogborn requested an administrative hearing which was continued pending criminal proceedings.
- DHS moved in the administrative appeal for entry of judgment (styled as summary judgment) arguing the circuit-court adjudication precluded readjudication under Ark. Code § 12-18-807; the ALJ applied collateral estoppel and § 12-18-807(b) and ordered placement on the registry; the circuit court and this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Ogborn's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ was bound by the dependency-neglect adjudication (issue preclusion) | Stipulation is not "actually litigated"; collateral estoppel inapplicable (analogous to guilty plea) | "Actually litigated" requires only that issue was raised, party had full and fair opportunity to litigate, and a decision rendered | Held for DHS: collateral estoppel applies; stipulation plus evidence and opportunity satisfied "actually litigated" requirement |
| Whether Ark. Code § 12-18-807(b) required the ALJ to give preclusive effect to the judicial adjudication | Section should not bar administrative reconsideration because adjudication arose from a stipulation | § 12-18-807(b) mandates the office determine preclusive effect and prohibits readjudication of precluded issues | Held for DHS: statute requires application of claim/issue preclusion and bars readjudication of precluded issues |
| Whether the ALJ erred in "reviving" DHS’s motion for summary judgment after lack of specific findings were provided | ALJ improperly revived/relied on a deficient motion for summary judgment | DHS’s motion was a request to determine preclusive effect under § 12-18-807(b); ALJ was statutorily required to make that determination | Held for DHS: not reversible error; ALJ had statutory duty to determine preclusive effect |
| Whether administrative decision was supported by substantial evidence and free of procedural error | Ogborn argued procedural unfairness and lack of proper adjudication | DHS relied on circuit-court findings, evidentiary record, and statutory framework | Held for DHS: agency decision supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. Lane, 375 Ark. 178 (discusses collateral estoppel and what constitutes "actually litigated")
- Bradley Ventures, Inc. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 371 Ark. 229 (guilty plea discussion cited by appellant)
- Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Thompson, 331 Ark. 181 (standard of review for administrative decisions)
- Teston v. Ark. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 361 Ark. 300 (upholding agency decision if supported by any substantial evidence)
- Ark. Bd. of Exam’rs in Counseling v. Carlson, 334 Ark. 614 (definition and application of substantial evidence)
- State Office of Child Support Enf’t v. Willis, 347 Ark. 6 (collateral estoppel principles)