Salinas v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2019 Ark. App. 72
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- DHS removed four children (AF, MS1, MS2, SN) after a neighbor observed a 13‑year‑old (LC) engaged in vaginal and oral sex with MS1; MS1 reported digital vaginal penetration and forced oral sex.
- MS1 had been sexually abused previously in 2016 by an 18‑year‑old half brother; DHS had earlier intervened and the court ordered close ("line‑of‑sight") supervision.
- At the time of the 2018 incident, Salinas admitted briefly losing sight of MS1 (saying 8 minutes) and leaving AF (age 15) to supervise younger children while she picked up her boyfriend; Salinas also admitted MS1 missed ADHD medication for ~6–8 weeks.
- Police and state‑police investigators concluded ‘‘sexually aggressive behavior’’ and an arrest of LC followed; DHS presented multiple prior true findings involving MS1 (including sexual abuse and failure to protect).
- The circuit court adjudicated all children dependent‑neglected based on sexual abuse of MS1 and Salinas’s failure to protect, medication and school/counseling lapses, and ordered disposition; Salinas appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Salinas’s Argument | DHS’s / Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports MS1’s dependent‑neglected adjudication | Insufficient evidence; Salinas supervised and abuse occurred in a short lapse | Neighbor eyewitness, MS1’s statements, police finding of sexually aggressive behavior | Affirmed — sexual‑abuse evidence alone supports dependency verdict |
| Whether neglect / parental unfitness supported MS1’s adjudication | Line‑of‑sight supervision was unreasonable to demand at all times | Prior court order, prior sexual abuse, known "red flags," failure to follow recommendations and medication lapse | Affirmed — repeated failures to protect constitute neglect/unfitness |
| Whether siblings (AF, MS2, SN) can be adjudicated based on MS1’s abuse | No direct evidence they were at risk; court cannot automatically apply sibling status | Statute and precedent allow sibling adjudication where parent’s acts create risk; totality of facts here show systemwide risk | Affirmed — particular facts show substantial risk to all children |
| Whether the court made an "automatic" sibling finding | Salinas: court relied solely on MS1’s status | DHS/Court: decision based on two sexual‑abuse findings, prior DHS history, failures to medicate, school/counseling noncompliance, and prior court warnings | Affirmed — court considered the totality and did not automatically adjudicate siblings |
Key Cases Cited
- Eason v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 423 S.W.3d 138 (Ark. Ct. App.) (deference to circuit court credibility findings and sibling‑risk analysis)
- Brewer v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 43 S.W.3d 196 (Ark. Ct. App.) (parental unfitness may justify sibling protection absent direct harm to each child)
- Haney v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 526 S.W.3d 903 (Ark. Ct. App.) (reversal where court failed to assess individual risk to unborn child)
- Allen‑Grace v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 542 S.W.3d 205 (Ark. Ct. App.) (affirming sibling‑risk adjudication; focus on risk created by family circumstances)
- Blanchard v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 379 S.W.3d 686 (Ark. Ct. App.) (appellate court will not reweigh credibility or act as factfinder)