Rice v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Children
572 S.W.3d 907
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- DHS took emergency custody of T.L. (b. 2010) and A.B. (b. 2015) on April 7, 2017 for environmental and educational neglect and because Rice tested positive for illegal drugs while children were present. An ex parte emergency-custody order issued April 10, 2017.
- At probable-cause and adjudication hearings the court found dependency-neglect based on environmental neglect and Rice’s drug use; the case plan required cooperation with DHS, random drug screens, parenting classes, counseling, psychological evaluation, and a drug/alcohol assessment.
- After periodic reviews, the permanency goal was changed to adoption on April 4, 2018; DHS filed to terminate Rice’s parental rights (failure to remedy and aggravated circumstances).
- At the August 1, 2018 termination hearing DHS witnesses testified Rice failed to remediate living-condition issues, continued illegal substance use (including recent positive/abnormal screens), missed many visits, did not complete required services timely, and provided inconsistent participation.
- CASA and an adoption specialist testified termination was in the children’s best interest and the children were adoptable (placement with aunt/uncle seeking adoption).
- The circuit court terminated Rice’s parental rights; Rice appealed only the sufficiency of the evidence and best-interest analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rice) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved failure-to-remedy ground by clear and convincing evidence | Rice contends DHS’s caseworker was biased, DHS failed to provide critical hands-on parenting services, and DHS did not make meaningful efforts | DHS points to Rice’s continued drug use, environmental neglect, failure to complete services timely, missed visits, and overall noncompliance despite offers of services | Court affirmed termination on failure-to-remedy: DHS made meaningful efforts and Rice failed to remedy conditions that caused removal |
| Whether DHS proved aggravated-circumstances ground | Rice argued DHS did not prove aggravated circumstances | DHS alleged aggravated circumstances in petition (not addressed further on appeal) | Court did not need to address aggravated-circumstances ground because failure-to-remedy sufficed to affirm |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest | Rice argued court failed to consider impact on relationship with sibling C.D. (not in DHS custody) | DHS showed children thriving in current placement, are adoptable, and return to Rice posed risk of harm | Court held termination was in children’s best interest; court considered required statutory factors and sibling separation was not reversible error here |
| Standard of review and application to findings | Rice argued findings were clearly erroneous given alleged DHS failures | DHS relied on circuit court’s credibility findings and statutory standards | Appellate court applied de novo review but defers to circuit court credibility; no clear error found so findings were affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 567 S.W.3d 870 (2018) (standard for appellate review in termination cases; de novo review and best-interest requirement)
- McGaugh v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 505 S.W.3d 227 (2016) (clear-error standard when burden is clear and convincing evidence)
- Blasingame v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 542 S.W.3d 873 (2018) (focus on whether parent became a stable, safe caregiver; compliance alone not dispositive)
- Bridges v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 571 S.W.3d 506 (2019) (parent’s past behavior as indicator of future behavior)
- Clark v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 493 S.W.3d 782 (2016) (sibling separation is one factor courts may consider in best-interest determinations)