Samuels v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2014 Ark. App. 527
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- DHS removed A.S. in 2011 after the death of her sibling; court adjudicated her dependent-neglected with the goal of permanent custody with Samuels.
- A.S. was placed with Samuels in temporary custody, but 31 days later Samuels was arrested for third-degree domestic battery in which A.S. was present, leading to another removal and 16 months in foster care.
- In August 2013, the court returned A.S. to Samuels’ custody, but one month later he was arrested again and A.S. returned to DHS custody.
- In January 2014, the circuit court terminated Samuels’ parental rights to A.S.
- The court found two grounds: (1) post-petition issues showing Samuels’ incapacity or indifference to remedy, and (2) aggravated circumstances; Samuels allegedly failed to take medication and attend counseling and had housing instability.
- The appellate court affirmed termination, addressing best-interest considerations and rejecting ADA accommodation arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two statutory grounds supported termination | Samuels argues grounds undermine fitness | DHS contends grounds proven by post-petition issues and aggravated circumstances | Yes; two grounds established termination warranted |
| Whether termination was in A.S.’s best interest | Samuels asserts adoptability questions foreclose best-interest finding | DHS argues adoptability and potential harm support termination | Yes; best interest supported termination by adoptability and risk considerations |
| Whether ADA accommodations or Wicks exception were proper | Samuels seeks ADA accommodations via Wicks exception due to ineffective counsel | No preserved error; no viable Wicks exception in termination context | Not preserved; no review on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207 (Ark. 2001) (clear and convincing evidence standard; de novo review)
- M.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 58 Ark. App. 302 (Ark. App. 1997) (clear and convincing standard; best interests considerations)
- L.W. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 44, 380 S.W.3d 489 (Ark. App. 2011) (two-step termination process; best interests assessment)
- Gutierrez v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 575, 424 S.W.3d 329 (Ark. App. 2012) (forward-looking potential-harm analysis in best-interest determination)
- B.H.1. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 532 (Ark. App. 2012) (evidence of noncompliance as potential-harm indicator)
- Jones v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 97 Ark. App. 267, 248 S.W.3d 507 (Ark. App. 2007) (contemporaneous objections rule; preservation standards)
- Dority v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 295 (Ark. App. 2011) (adoptability as factor in best-interest analysis)
- Hopper v. Garner, 328 Ark. 516, 944 S.W.2d 540 (Ark. 1997) (court will not create new exceptions absent authority)