Renfro v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2011 Ark. App. 419
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- DHS took three Renfro children into emergency custody on 12/5/2008 after Renfro, while intoxicated, went to a school to pick up a child and could not stand; emergency custody order entered 12/8/2008; probable-cause hearing set for 12/15/2008; adjudication on 2/17/2009 found the children dependent-neglected.
- Adjudication noted Renfro stipulated to failure to provide basic needs and housing; court found return to parents contrary to welfare and continued custody with DHS with reunification goal.
- May 2009 review kept reunification as goal but allowed a concurrent permanency plan other than reunification; Renfro remained unstable with housing, employment, and transportation issues.
- March 2010 DHS petitioned to terminate parental rights (TPR) alleging continued absence for over 12 months and failure to remedy conditions; DHS later shifted to a goal of adoption.
- June 2010 permanency order changed goal from reunification to adoption and required DHS to develop an appropriate permanency plan; hearings in June and July 2010 included a police report about the Grimes foster family; the court ultimately terminated Renfro’s parental rights on 9/1/2010 and authorized DHS to consent to adoption.
- Renfro appealed asserting (i) lack of evidence on adoptability and (ii) abuse of discretion in denying a continuance to obtain consent and complete home studies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was clear and convincing evidence adoptability supported termination. | Renfro argues there was no testimony on adoptability. | DHS argues evidence, including foster/adoptive interest, supported adoptability. | Yes; adoptability considered and supported termination. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance for consent and home study. | Renfro contends denial prevented her from obtaining consent from relatives. | Court properly denied continuance given 18-month age of case and need for permanency. | No; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Friend v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 S.W.3d 670 (Ark. App. 2009) (clear and convincing standard and best-interest factors in TPR)
- Strickland v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 287 S.W.3d 633 (Ark. App. 2008) (deference to trial court; clear and convincing evidence required for termination)
- Hall v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 278 S.W.3d 609 (Ark. App. 2008) (best-interest analysis; adoptability not required to be clear and convincing)
- McFarland v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 210 S.W.3d 143 (Ark. App. 2005) (adoptability is a factor, not sole determinant; overall clear and convincing evidence needed)
- Reid v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 380 S.W.3d 918 (Ark. 2011) (adoptability need not be proven by clear and convincing evidence; consider overall factors)
- Dority v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 295 (Ark. App. 2011) (adoptability is considered in best-interest analysis; not strictly clear-and-convincing)
- Grant v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 378 S.W.3d 227 (Ark. App. 2010) (lack of evidentiary support on adoptability reversed)
- Haynes v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2010 Ark. App. 28 (Ark. App. 2010) (no evidence of adoptability; distinguishable fact pattern)
- Reed v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 375 S.W.3d 709 (Ark. App. 2010) (best-interest with adoptability factors)
- Clingenpeel v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 381 S.W.3d 107 (Ark. App. 2011) (adoptability as factor in best-interest analysis)
- Donahue v. Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 260 S.W.3d 334 (Ark. App. 2007) (evidentiary objections; testimony required for admissibility)