Ponder v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2016 Ark. 261
Ark.2016Background
- In December 2013 DHS removed three minor children (A.P., E.P., and J.P.) after the death of another child in the household and placed them with relatives.
- The circuit court adjudicated the children dependent-neglected on May 29, 2014, initially set reunification as the goal, and held periodic reviews.
- On December 1, 2014, the court changed the goal from reunification to identification of permanent custodians and scheduled a permanency-planning/review sequence.
- At a January 9, 2015 review hearing the court announced permanent custody to relatives; written permanent-custody orders were entered January 26, 2015.
- Ponder appealed, the court of appeals reversed and remanded, DHS sought review, and the Arkansas Supreme Court granted review to consider whether there was sufficient evidence to support the permanent-custody placement.
- The majority affirmed because the appellant failed to bring a record demonstrating error and had conceded no new evidence would be presented at the relevant hearing; two justices dissented, arguing the record was inadequate to permit review and due process was not satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court’s grant of permanent custody to relatives was supported by sufficient evidence | Ponder: No hearing evidence supported the January 26, 2015 permanent-custody orders; the record is void of evidence and no proper hearing occurred for final disposition | DHS: Appellant failed to produce a record showing trial-court error; Ponder conceded at a hearing that no new evidence would be presented, so the existing record supports the orders | Affirmed — court found appellant failed to bring a sufficient record to demonstrate error and will not reverse absent a showing the trial court was wrong |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamontagne v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 366 S.W.3d 351 (Ark. 2010) (standard of review for dependency-neglect findings)
- Stehle v. Zimmerebner, 291 S.W.3d 573 (Ark. 2009) (legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- State Dep’t of Career Educ. v. Means, 426 S.W.3d 922 (Ark. 2013) (appellant’s burden to bring a sufficient record on appeal)
- Childers v. H. Louis Payne, D.C., 252 S.W.3d 129 (Ark. 2007) (appellant may not complain of action he induced, consented to, or acquiesced in)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (due process and rule-of-law principles discussed in dissent)