Rickman v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
548 S.W.3d 861
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- K.R., born Aug. 23, 2007, was taken into DHS emergency custody on May 13, 2014, due to Sherry Rickman’s illegal drug use and remained in foster care for over three years.
- In Feb.–Mar. 2017 the circuit court entered a no-reunification order finding aggravated circumstances and that returning K.R. to Rickman would be contrary to the child’s health, safety, and welfare; the order noted clutter/trash, unstable and abusive relationship, alcohol abuse by a partner, Rickman’s admitted Adderall addiction, borderline functioning, medication noncompliance, and parenting deficits.
- Less than three months after the no-reunification order, on June 5, 2017 the court terminated Rickman’s parental rights on the aggravated-circumstances ground and found termination was in K.R.’s best interest.
- At the termination hearing the court relied on the foster parent’s adoption interest, the caseworker’s expectation of adoption, the recent no-reunification findings, and the record of Rickman’s multi-year case compliance.
- Rickman did not challenge the statutory ground for termination on appeal; she argued only that evidence was insufficient to show termination was in K.R.’s best interest because DHS failed to prove potential harm from returning K.R. under her then-current circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported best-interest finding (potential harm) | Rickman: court improperly relied on prior no-reunification findings; DHS needed proof of current risk at termination hearing | State/DHS: court may consider recent no-reunification findings, the entire case record, and predictive evidence of potential harm | Court affirmed: no-reunification findings (entered <3 months earlier), entire case record, and forward-looking predictive evidence suffice to show potential harm and best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (2001) (standard for de novo review of TPR cases)
- Shawkey v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 510 S.W.3d 803 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (credibility determinations are for the factfinder; past behavior predicts future harm)
- Dowdy v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 314 S.W.3d 722 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009) (court need not identify specific actual harm to find potential harm)
- Samuels v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 443 S.W.3d 599 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (potential-harm evidence is forward-looking and broad)
- Helvey v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 501 S.W.3d 398 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (parent’s past conduct may predict future harm)
- Tankersley v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 389 S.W.3d 96 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (self-serving, uncorroborated testimony of changed circumstances may be discounted)
- Rickman v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 534 S.W.3d 180 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (prior opinion recounting procedural history and earlier proceedings)