Pratt v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2012 Ark. App. 399
Ark. Ct. App.2012Background
- DHS took emergency custody of C.J. in 2010 amid allegations of unsafe living conditions and domestic abuse between Yolanda and Kirby.
- C.J. was adjudicated dependent-neglected in December 2010, with Yolanda found to be significantly low functioning; reunification was the initial goal.
- By March 2011, the court noted Yolanda’s low IQ (55) and limited ability to benefit from services, while C.J. showed serious developmental delays and dental issues.
- In August 2011, the permanency plan shifted to adoption after finding reunification unlikely due to parental incapacity.
- A termination hearing occurred in November 2011 with multiple witnesses-opinions indicating C.J.’s high needs and risks if returned to the parents.
- The trial court terminated Yolanda’s and Kirby’s parental rights, concluding continued custody was not in C.J.’s health or safety and that adoption was likely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence | Glover: C.J.’s needs require permanent placement; parents failed to remedy conditions. | Glover: DHS failed to prove termination was necessary; less than best interests shown. | Termination supported by clear and convincing evidence |
| Best-interest factors: adoptability and potential for harm | DHS: C.J. was adoptable and at risk if returned. | Parents contend potential harm was not demonstrated. | Court found adoptability and potential harm supported termination |
| Preservation of Yolanda’s ADA-related claim | Yolanda argues ADA accommodations were not provided, rendering termination premature. | Court did not address merits due to preservation issues; exception not appropriate. | Issue not addressed on appeal due to preservation concerns |
| Kirby’s compliance with the case plan and credibility concerns | DHS proved noncompliance or inability to achieve goals, and Kirby lacked credibility about drug use and needs. | Kirby challenges evidence of noncompliance and misperceptions of C.J.’s needs. | Court affirmed termination based on noncompliance and risk factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 369 (Ark. App. 2012) (clear and convincing standard, best interests in termination cases)
- Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781, 606 S.W.2d 366 (1980) (Ark. 1980) (third-contemporaneous-objection exception discussed)
- Tucker v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 430, 389 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. App. 2011) (best interests hinge on adoptability and potential harm)
- Gilmore v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 614, 379 S.W.3d 501 (Ark. App. 2010) (considerations in termination proceedings)