Sanford v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2015 Ark. App. 578
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In June 2013 DHS removed K.S. (b. 2009) and A.S. (b. 2011) after allegations of sexual abuse of a stepsibling and the mother’s methamphetamine use; Sanford was incarcerated in Texas at that time.
- Sanford requested appointed counsel, wrote the court and DHS, and asserted he had tried to financially support the children via the maternal grandmother; DHS informed him of services and encouraged documentation of programs completed in prison.
- The children were adjudicated dependent-neglected (July 2013); case services and the case plan were directed to the mother; permanency goal changed to adoption in May 2014.
- DHS filed to terminate Sanford’s parental rights in July 2014, alleging (1) children out of the home ≥12 months and parent failed to remedy conditions, (2) failure to provide material support, and (3) parent incarcerated for a substantial portion of the children’s lives.
- Sanford completed some prison programming, was released to local custody in Dec. 2014 and facing further incarceration until ~May 2015; at the Jan. 2015 termination hearing the court found Sanford lacked stability, had prior substance- and domestic-violence issues, owed significant child support, and termination was in the children’s best interest.
- The circuit court terminated Sanford’s parental rights; on de novo review the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding clear-and-convincing evidence the parent’s incarceration constituted a substantial portion of the children’s lives and termination was in the children’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Sanford's Argument | DHS/Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether incarceration constituted a "substantial period" of the children’s lives under Ark. Code § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(viii) | Sanford: his remaining sentence was short and did not amount to a substantial portion of the children’s lives; point to potential release and ability to work/housing | DHS/Court: measure is length of the sentence served and remaining; Sanford had been incarcerated ~19 months with ~4 months remaining—constituted a substantial portion given children’s ages | Held: Affirmed. The total incarceration period (≈23 months) was a substantial portion of each child’s life. |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest (potential harm) | Sanford: he would have employment, housing assistance from his tribe, and income after release; no actual harm shown | DHS/Court: children's special needs, need for permanency, Sanford’s history of placing his needs above children, instability from incarceration and prior non-support | Held: Affirmed. Court found clear-and-convincing evidence of potential harm and that termination served children's need for permanency. |
| Whether DHS failed to provide meaningful notice/services to Sanford such that subsequent factors could not be considered | Sanford: he was excluded from the case plan and first learned of new factors in the termination petition | DHS/Court: DHS corresponded with Sanford, encouraged participation and documentation of programming; the incarceration ground does not require meaningful efforts | Held: Rejected. Court relied on incarceration ground (which does not require DHS rehabilitative efforts) and found sufficient communication. |
| Whether other statutory grounds (failure to remedy, failure to materially support) were proven | Sanford: challenges sufficiency of evidence on statutory grounds | DHS/Court: presented evidence of non-support, history of not remedying conditions, and subsequent criminal/behavioral developments | Held: Court did not need to decide additional grounds because one statutory ground (incarceration) sufficed; other grounds supported court’s broader conclusions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Services, 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (2001) (de novo review standard for termination appeals)
- Fields v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Services, 104 Ark. App. 37, 289 S.W.3d 134 (2008) (appellate review asks whether trial court’s clear-and-convincing finding is clearly erroneous)
- Matlock v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Services, 2015 Ark. App. 184, 458 S.W.3d 253 (2015) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- Hamman v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Services, 2014 Ark. App. 295, 435 S.W.3d 495 (2014) (best-interest analysis: adoptability and potential harm; permanency concerns justify termination)
- Stephens v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Services, 2013 Ark. App. 249, 427 S.W.3d 160 (2013) (parent’s past behavior as indicator of future conduct)
- Friend v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Services, 2009 Ark. App. 606, 344 S.W.3d 670 (2009) (court must examine entire parental record)
- Moses v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Services, 2014 Ark. App. 466, 441 S.W.3d 54 (2014) (incarceration ground does not require DHS meaningful rehabilitative efforts)
- Dozier v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Services, 2010 Ark. App. 17, 372 S.W.3d 849 (2010) (child’s need for permanency may override parental request for more time)