Painter v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2013 Ark. App. 602
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Painter appeals a 2013 Craighead County circuit court order terminating her parental rights to her eleven-year-old daughter B.P.
- DHS intervened after Painter’s multiple welfare and safety concerns, including a 2011 incident where B.P. was taken to DHS following Painter’s suicide-attempt hospitalization and ongoing mental-health and addiction problems.
- B.P. was adjudicated dependent-neglected in February 2012; by late February 2012 Painter complied with the case plan (parenting classes, drug screens, counseling, and stable housing).
- A May–June 2012 trial placement failed after Painter’s DWI arrest; Painter later sought long-term treatment (Project New Start) and began in January 2013, which DHS questioned as appropriate for dual diagnoses.
- DHS filed a petition to terminate in January 2013 asserting two bases: (i) twelve months out of parental custody with unremedied conditions, and (ii) subsequent factors showing return would threaten B.P.’s health or safety and lack of adequate reunification services, with evidence of Painter’s incapacity or indifference.
- The trial court found two statutory grounds for termination and, after hearing, concluded termination was in B.P.’s best interests due to high likelihood of adoption and potential harm if returned to Painter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the two statutory grounds for termination proven by clear and convincing evidence? | Painter argues insufficient proof of unfitness and failure to remedy; her conduct and progress merit reunification. | DHS contends Painter remained incapable or unwilling to maintain sobriety and stable mental health, endangering B.P. | Yes; the trial court’s findings on grounds for termination were supported by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Is termination in B.P.’s best interests supported by the record? | Painter asserts continued parent–child relationship is in the child’s best interests; argues for reunification given efforts. | DHS asserts strong likelihood of adoption and substantial risks if returned; past conduct indicates future risk. | Yes; the child’s best interests favored termination and adoption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murray v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2013 Ark. App. 431 (Ark. App. 2013) (applies clear-and-convincing standard for termination findings)
- Rossie-Fonner v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 388 S.W.3d 38 (Ark. App. 2012) (reviews credibility and deference to trial court findings)
- Pine v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 379 S.W.3d 703 (Ark. App. 2010) (best-interests inquiry guided by broad assessment)
- Stephens v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2013 Ark. App. 249 (Ark. App. 2013) (past conduct informs future risk analysis)
- Barber v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 381 (Ark. App. 2010) (unpersuasive non-merits arguments are not reversible)
- Smith v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 93 Ark. App. 395, 219 S.W.3d 705 (Ark. App. 2005) (procedural framework for termination review)