Parish v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 552
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- ADHS filed a dependency-neglect petition after reports that Traci Parrish had physically abused her daughter V.R.; Parrish had prior true findings and a prior child-removal/foster placement.
- V.R. was removed, placed in foster care, and ADHS provided multiple services over two dependency episodes spanning several years; reunification was attempted but later the goal was changed to adoption.
- ADHS filed a termination-of-parental-rights (TPR) petition alleging multiple statutory grounds and that termination was in V.R.’s best interest; trial was held November 2016.
- Evidence included a psychological evaluation diagnosing personality disorder and opioid disorder (in remission), counselors’ testimony noting partial progress but persistent problems, supervised-visit observations showing lack of parental structure, and testimony that appellant minimized the abuse.
- The trial court found three statutory grounds (including aggravated circumstances—little likelihood services would reunify) proven by clear and convincing evidence and found termination was in the child’s best interest (adoptability and potential harm if returned).
- On appeal Parrish argued insufficiency of the statutory-ground findings (particularly aggravated circumstances), that ADHS failed to offer key family services, and that the best-interest finding relied on speculative opinion testimony; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Parrish) | Defendant's Argument (ADHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for TPR were proven (aggravated circumstances: little likelihood services will reunify) | Parrish: Evidence shows progress and ADHS failed to provide critical services (e.g., one-on-one parent-child or family therapy); trial court relied on historical conduct and speculation. | ADHS: Long history of services across two dependency episodes, persistent abusive/neglectful conduct and relapse, and expert/caseworker testimony supports little-likelihood finding. | Court: Affirmed—aggravated circumstances proved by clear and convincing evidence; only one ground needed. |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interest (potential harm if returned) | Parrish: Trial court relied on caseworker opinion without proper foundation; evidence showed improvement and adoptability not challenged. | ADHS: Caseworker testimony credibly established ongoing risk (denial/minimization, instability, substance issues) making return harmful. | Court: Affirmed—best-interest finding supported; objection to foundation was untimely so testimony could support decision. |
| Whether ADHS’s failure to offer specific services (e.g., intensive family therapy) undermines TPR | Parrish: Lack of certain offered services means further services would not have been useless or repetitious. | ADHS: Offered a myriad of services over long involvement; prior reunification followed by repeated abuse shows services unlikely to succeed. | Court: Rejected—trial court permissibly concluded further services would be futile given history. |
| Whether appellate court should reweigh credibility/weight of evidence | Parrish: Trial court misweighed recent improvement evidence in favor of historical incidents. | ADHS: Trial court entitled to credit witnesses and weigh evidence; appellate court must defer absent clear error. | Court: Affirmed—appellate court will not act as super factfinder; no clear error found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 520 S.W.3d 702 (Ark. App. 2017) (standard of review and two-step TPR framework: statutory ground plus best interest)
- Yarborough v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 240 S.W.3d 626 (Ark. App. 2006) (court must do more than mere speculation when predicting that services will not reunify)
- Posey v. Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services, 262 S.W.3d 159 (Ark. 2007) (appellate court should not reweigh evidence or second-guess credibility determinations)
- New Empire Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 362 S.W.2d 4 (Ark. 1962) (if a party fails to object to incompetent evidence, it becomes part of the record that may support a finding)