Rossie-Fonner v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2012 Ark. App. 29
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- DHS petitioned to terminate parental rights of Savannah Fonner to her son C.R. born December 7, 2009, after DHS took custody following a report of a caregiver hearing a voice instructing to drown the infant.
- Appellant has a history of mental illness, mood disorder, past drug use, and admitted years of hearing voices; Dr. Deyoub diagnosed schizoaffective disorder and other issues, concluding she posed a real risk to C.R.
- C.R. was adjudicated dependent-neglected and initially placed with his grandparents; various evaluations recommended supervision and cautious permanency planning toward relative placement or termination.
- A second psychological evaluation (Dr. DeRoeck) offered a more nuanced prognosis, suggesting continued support and monitoring but not endorsing an immediate return of C.R. to Fonner without strict safeguards.
- In March 2011, DHS filed for TPR; a hearing found by clear and convincing evidence that conditions causing removal were not remedied and that termination was in C.R.’s best interests, given the chronic nature of appellant’s mental illness and risk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there clear and convincing evidence of a statutory ground for TPR? | DHS contends C.R. remained out of custody >12 months and conditions weren’t remedied. | Fonner argues compliance with some court orders and potential for reunification with safeguards. | Yes; grounds satisfied and termination warranted. |
| Is termination in C.R.’s best interests under a forward-looking harm analysis? | Best interests favor termination to ensure safety and stability for C.R. | Fonner asserts possible permanency with supervision and relative placement could be best. | Termination in best interests supported by risk of harm and lack of stable prognosis. |
| Did the trial court properly apply the clear-and-convincing standard and de novo review? | Court gave due weight to expert evaluations and child’s safety. | Appellant challenges credibility and weight given to testimony. | Yes; appellate review affirmed the trial court’s credibility assessments and ruling. |
| Did Dr. DeRoeck’s and Dr. Deyoub’s evaluations support a permanent custody outcome? | Evaluations show persistent risk; supervise measures cannot ensure safety. | Some witnesses suggested potential stability with treatment; safety plans contemplated. | Evaluations collectively supported termination given chronic risk and lack of reliable safety. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (before termination, heightened proof required for parental rights)
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (Ark. 2001) (factor-based review and standards for termination)
- Smith v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 100 Ark.App. 74, 264 S.W.3d 559 (Ark. App. 2007) (appellate review of TPR standards and best interests)
- Bearden v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 317, 42 S.W.3d 397 (Ark. 2001) (contextual guidance on permanency and rehabilitation considerations)