Reed v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2012 Ark. App. 369
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Mist y Reed appeals a November 2011 Craighead County Circuit Court termination of parental rights involving HR (born 2008) and KR (born 2005).
- Lower court found grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and concluded termination was in the children’s best interests.
- Children were removed in July 2009 and found dependent-neglected in November 2009 due to an allegation of sexual abuse by Reed; the abuse finding was later unfounded for placement on the child-abuse registry.
- Reed complied with some case-plan requirements over time but remained unstable—lacking stable housing, steady employment, and reliable income—and lived with partners tied to past sexual abuse issues.
- The trial court considered the likelihood of adoption and potential harm to the children if returned to Reed, concluding adoption was likely and that Reed’s credibility and housing/income issues posed potential harm.
- DHS and the guardian ad litem urged termination; Reed challenged the best-interest determination but did not contest grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best interest supported by likelihood of adoption | Reed argues adoption likelihood was not proven | DHS argues the court reasonably found a high likelihood of adoption | Not clearly erroneous; best interest supported |
| Best interest supported by potential harm if returned | Reed argues no demonstrated potential for harm | DHS argues harm was shown by Reed’s instability and credibility issues | Not clearly erroneous; potential harm established |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207 (2001) (review of termination de novo; clear and convincing standard; credibility given to trial court)
- Camarillo-Cox v. Ark Dep’t of Human Servs., 360 Ark. 340 (2005) (clear and convincing standard; best interests require two-factor analysis)
- M.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 58 Ark.App. 302 (1997) (clear and convincing standard; termination requires best interests)
- Smith v. Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 100 Ark.App. 74 (2007) (best interests assessment; forward-looking harm considerations)
- Anderson v. Douglas, 310 Ark. 633 (1992) (definition of clear and convincing evidence and appellate deference to trial court credibility)
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243 (1997) (standard for determining whether disputed fact findings are clearly erroneous)
- Tucker v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 430 (2011) (best-interest analysis includes likelihood of adoption and potential harm)
- Dowdy v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 180 (2009) (potential harm viewed in broad, forward-looking terms)
- Anderson v. Ark Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 526 (2011) (adoption likelihood and permanency considerations in termination)