Parnell v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
538 S.W.3d 264
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- DHS removed J.L.(1) (born Jan. 25, 2011) on Feb. 2–4, 2015 after a hospital exam and investigator interviews alleging sexual contact; J.L.(1) had genital lesions consistent with HPV.
- Triplets (born June 28, 2015) were placed in DHS custody in August 2015 based on a prior true finding of failure to protect as to Parnell and the sexual-abuse finding as to Laster; all four children remained in foster care.
- Adjudication and permanency proceedings were continued multiple times with no timely objection by parents; an adjudication order (June 24, 2016) found J.L.(1) dependent-neglected (sexual abuse) and reserved final identification of the perpetrator pending testing.
- Laster was incarcerated during the proceedings and is a registered sex offender; DHS offered virtually no services to him due to incarceration. Parnell completed offered services but had a history of residing with/partnering with sex offenders and had mental‑health/functional limitations.
- DHS sought termination under multiple statutory grounds (including twelve‑month failure to remedy, sexual abuse of a juvenile/sibling, and substantial sentence). The trial court terminated both parents’ rights (Apr. 21, 2017); this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of adjudication for J.L.(1) — subject‑matter jurisdiction | Parents: court lost jurisdiction because adjudication hearing and order missed statutory time frames | State: failure to object below; untimely hearings do not oust subject‑matter jurisdiction; remedy is appeal | Court: rejected jurisdictional attack; untimeliness is not jurisdictional and parents failed to preserve complaint |
| Adjudication of the triplets — whether they were adjudicated dependent‑neglected | Parents: triplets not adjudicated because adjudication order focused on “the juvenile” and dates related to J.L.(1) | State: triplets were listed; counsel did not dispute allegations at hearing; invited‑error applies | Court: issue not preserved as a jurisdictional defect; parents invited any error; termination may be affirmed on alternative grounds |
| Sufficiency of grounds for Laster (substantial sentence / sexual‑abuse ground) | Laster: substantial‑sentence ground improper as applied to triplets because much of his sentence was served before their birth | State: sexual‑abuse and substantial‑sentence grounds proven; incarceration and findings support termination | Court: upheld sexual‑abuse‑of‑sibling and substantial‑sentence findings; sexual‑abuse finding as to sibling and incarceration supported termination |
| Parnell — failure to remedy & adequacy of DHS services | Parnell: she completed case plan; DHS failed to provide mental‑health counseling and other meaningful services; therefore failure‑to‑remedy not proved | State: despite compliance, Parnell’s choices (living/partnering with sex offenders), poor decision‑making, limited supports/instability left children at risk; DHS made reasonable efforts | Court: affirmed termination on failure‑to‑remedy and sexual‑abuse‑of‑a‑sibling grounds; lack of specific mental‑health referral did not rebut finding that reunification remained unsafe |
Key Cases Cited
- Banning v. State, 22 Ark. App. 144, 737 S.W.2d 167 (Ark. Ct. App. 1987) (distinguishing subject‑matter jurisdiction from errors in proceeding within jurisdiction)
- Ellis v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2016 Ark. 441, 505 S.W.3d 678 (Ark. 2016) (untimely hearings can be reversible error but do not necessarily divest jurisdiction)
- Noble v. Norris, 368 Ark. 69, 243 S.W.3d 260 (Ark. 2006) (failure to follow statutory procedure may be reversible error but does not oust jurisdiction)
- Wade v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 337 Ark. 353, 990 S.W.2d 509 (Ark. 1999) (timeliness requirements in juvenile proceedings do not automatically deprive court of jurisdiction)
- Hill v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2012 Ark. App. 108, 389 S.W.3d 72 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (long parental incarceration can constitute a substantial period of the child’s life for termination purposes)
- Harbin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2014 Ark. App. 715, 451 S.W.3d 231 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (past behavior may be predictive of potential future harm in best‑interest analysis)