Robinson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2017 Ark. App. 251

Mother Charlisha Robinson had prior DHS involvement after an infant tested positive for cocaine at birth; another infant (N.R.) later died while in a relative’s care (cause unknown; no criminal charge).
On April 16, 2015, DHS placed Robinson’s daughter N.B. in emergency custody after Robinson tested positive for THC; N.B. was adjudicated dependent-neglected due to parental drug use.
DHS changed the permanency goal from reunification to adoption on June 30, 2016; DHS and the child’s attorney ad litem filed a joint petition to terminate parental rights on May 5, 2016.
A cousin, Sher’Risa Johnson, sought placement and by the termination hearing had been approved by DHS and was 21; she and Robinson both testified Johnson had been N.B.’s primary caregiver before foster care.
The circuit court found, by clear and convincing evidence, termination of Robinson’s parental rights was in N.B.’s best interest, considering adoptability and potential harm if the child were returned to Robinson.
Robinson appealed only the best-interest finding, conceding the statutory grounds for termination; the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination was in child’s best interest	Robinson: court should have allowed more time or placed child with a relative instead of terminating rights	DHS: adoption is appropriate permanency; relative placement does not preclude termination	Court affirmed: best-interest finding not clearly erroneous
Whether potential future harm to child was shown	Robinson: no evidence of potential harm to N.B.	DHS: mother’s ongoing drug use and instability show potential harm	Court: potential future harm shown by Robinson’s admitted continued drug use and instability
Whether the existence of a relative placement requires denial of termination	Robinson: relative placement available; DHS should evaluate relative rather than seek termination	DHS: statutes contemplate termination even when relative is available; permanency-plan supports adoption when reunification not possible	Court: relative placement does not bar termination; exceptions apply only if child is with relative at time of decision and termination is not in best interest
Whether adoptability was established	Robinson: contested need for termination given relative option	DHS/child’s ad litem: evidence supports adoptability and adoption is proper permanency plan	Court: DHS presented sufficient evidence of adoptability; adoption favored

Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (establishes de novo review and deference to trial-court credibility in TPR cases)
Smithee v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. 506, 471 S.W.3d 227 (parental rights are extreme remedy but may be terminated to protect child’s welfare)
Murray v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2013 Ark. App. 431, 429 S.W.3d 288 (two-step TPR analysis: statutory ground and best interest)
Anderson v. Douglas, 310 Ark. 633, 839 S.W.2d 196 (defines clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (appellate inquiry is whether trial court’s clear-and-convincing finding was clearly erroneous)
Benedict v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 96 Ark. App. 395, 242 S.W.3d 305 (appellate court will not substitute its credibility judgments for trial court)
Pine v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 781, 379 S.W.3d 703 (best-interest factors: adoptability and potential harm)
Tucker v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 430, 389 S.W.3d 1 (adoptability is a factor, not an essential element)
Allen v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 288, 384 S.W.3d 7 (parental drug use can show potential harm)
Bryant v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 390, 383 S.W.3d 901 (presence of potential relative placement alone does not require reversal of TPR)