Pine v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2010 Ark. App. 781
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- DHS filed a petition for emergency custody and dependency/neglect of M.P. on January 7, 2009 based on reports of inadequate supervision and intoxication and one report of throwing a child, leading to Pine’s arrest and Hoffman’s later arrests.
- The trial court granted emergency custody on January 7, 2009 and, on January 14, 2009, found probable cause for removal, said it was in M.P.’s best interest to remain in DHS custody, and restricted visitation for Hoffman and denied Pine visitation.
- On February 18, 2009, the court adjudicated M.P. dependent/neglected due to parental alcohol use and domestic violence, ordering M.P. to remain in DHS custody with twice-weekly supervised visitation.
- A May 13, 2009 review continued DHS custody, noting Hoffman’s inpatient treatment and ongoing sobriety concerns, and Pine’s unresolved paternity and housing/employment issues.
- A September 23, 2009 review again favored continued DHS custody, granted limited unsupervised visitation, and set a permanency hearing, while concerns about Hoffman’s alcohol use persisted.
- DHS filed the termination petition on February 4, 2010, alleging two grounds: (1) the twelve-month out-of-home status with unremedied conditions, and (2) subsequent factors showing return would be contrary to M.P.’s health, safety, or welfare; the TPR hearing resulted in termination and a finding that adoption was likely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is termination in M.P.’s best interests? | Hoffman and Pine argue termination rests solely on sobriety concerns and that they are making progress toward reunification. | DHS contends M.P., as a medically fragile child, requires safety and permanency and that continued contact with parents risks harm. | Best interests supported; termination affirmed. |
| Do the grounds for termination have clear and convincing evidence? | Parents contend there was insufficient evidence to prove the grounds, especially remedy within a reasonable time. | DHS argues there was clear and convincing evidence of unremedied conditions and subsequent factors. | Yes; grounds proven by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Was the court's best-interest analysis proper, considering potential adoption? | Appellants assert a need to weigh more factors and that alcoholism should not automatically preclude reunification. | DHS maintains the analysis properly balanced risk, medical fragility, and likelihood of adoption. | Analysis proper; adoption likelihood supports termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243 (1997) (clear-and-convincing standard and appellate review framework)
- Dowdy v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 314 S.W.3d 722 (Ark. 2009) (best-interests and harm analysis in termination cases)
- Meriweather v. Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 255 S.W.3d 505 (Ark. App. 2007) (permanency goals and terminal nature of rights in termination)
- Gossett v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 374 S.W.3d 205 (Ark. App. 2010) (one valid ground suffices to terminate parental rights)
- Davis v. Arkansas Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 254 S.W.3d 762 (Ark. App. 2007) (best-interests consideration and presumption against return)
- Hune v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 543 (Ark. App. 2010) (de novo review standard for termination orders)