Reid v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2011 Ark. 187
| Ark. | 2011Background
- DHS removed six minor females, including C.R. and A.R., from TACM on September 24, 2008 due to risk of maltreatment.
- Circuit court adjudicated the children dependent-neglected, finding neglect and exposure to abuse within TACM, including underage marriages and lack of adequate medical and educational provisions.
- Court ordered DHS case plan requiring housing separate from TACM, employment separate from TACM, counseling, school/education provisions, and supervised visitation.
- DHS petitioned for termination of parental rights (TPR) regarding C.R. on September 10, 2009; appellant later moved to eliminate two housing/employment case-plan requirements as unconstitutional.
- Global phase evidence included taped Tony Alamo conversations; court admitted these as business records; appellant argued free exercise rights and admissibility concerns.
- April 16, 2010 circuit court terminated appellant’s parental rights to C.R., finding C.R. had been out of the home over 12 months and that termination was in her best interest; DHS was authorized to consent to adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free exercise of religion | Reid argues strict scrutiny applies to free‑exercise claims. | DHS contends heightened scrutiny not required as state action targets conduct, not religion. | Lower standard upheld; rights limited by compelling state interest |
| Admissibility of telephone recordings | Recordings should be excluded as hearsay and not proper business records against party not a member. | Recordings are admissible as business records; probative value outweighs prejudice; not hearsay against a party. | Recordings admitted as business records; not reversible error |
| Termination grounds and best interests | DHS proved grounds and best interest by clear and convincing evidence; remedying conditions possible with services. | Evidence insufficient to prove grounds or best interests; constitutional rights implicated by case-plan requirements. | Court properly terminated rights; best-interest and statutory grounds satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Thorne v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Servs., 374 S.W.3d 912 (Ark. 2010) (free-exercise claims evaluated under strict scrutiny when applicable)
- Myers v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 380 S.W.3d 906 (Ark. 2011) (affirmed circuit court on free-exercise claims)
- Lee v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, 285 S.W.3d 277 (Ark. App. 2008) (harm analysis in TPR is broad; not require actual harm identified point-by-point)
- McFarland v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Servs., 210 S.W.3d 143 (Ark. App. 2005) (no requirement that each factor be established by clear and convincing evidence; overall evidence must be clear and convincing)
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 40 S.W.3d 286 (Ark. 2001) (termination justified by lack of compliance with case plan and other factors)
- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (U.S. 1972) (free-exercise rights balanced against state interests in education)