Sarut v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2015 Ark. App. 76
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In Feb 2013 DHS removed three children from Rebecca Sarut after law enforcement found the parents in a hotel; Sarut tested positive for methamphetamine, opiates, and benzodiazepines and admitted methadone use; home and children were unsanitary.
- Children were adjudicated dependent-neglected (Mar 2013) for inadequate supervision and environmental neglect; reunification was the initial goal with a case plan requiring drug treatment, weekly drug screens, parenting classes, stable housing/employment, and $30/week child support.
- Over the next 17 months Sarut repeatedly failed to obtain a drug-and-alcohol assessment, did not complete inpatient treatment, remained on long-term methadone, missed some drug screens, and lived in housing previously found inappropriate for the children.
- DHS placed the siblings together in a foster home where they were doing well and were deemed highly adoptable; the child's father’s parental rights were terminated separately.
- The circuit court found three statutory grounds for termination and that termination was in the children’s best interest (considering adoptability and potential harm from return), and terminated Sarut’s parental rights. Sarut appealed arguing insufficiency of evidence on grounds and lack of proof of potential harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sarut) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for grounds based on unchanged conditions after 12+ months out of home | Sarut: DHS failed to plead factual basis; she remedied conditions (not living with father, no recent meth positives). | DHS: Sarut remained on methadone, failed assessment/treatment, lived in inappropriate housing, so conditions persisted. | Court: Grounds were properly pled and supported; finding not clearly erroneous. |
| Failure-to-support (willful failure to provide significant material support) | Sarut: She had income and was only “a little behind” on child support. | DHS: Sarut failed to pay court-ordered child support and offered no proof of payments. | Court: Credibility for payments was for factfinder; finding not clearly erroneous. |
| Best-interest: potential harm if children returned | Sarut: Record lacks evidence of potential harm on return. | DHS: Continued addiction, failure to complete treatment, unstable housing, and ongoing contact with father posed generalized potential harm. | Court: Potential-harm need not be specific; broad concerns supported best-interest finding. |
| Adoptability / permanency | Sarut: (implicit) termination unnecessary if reunification plausible. | DHS: Children thriving in foster placement and are highly adoptable; permanency required. | Court: Adoptability favored termination; best interest supported termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (2001) (standard of review for termination is de novo).
- J.T. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (1997) (appellate review asks whether trial court's clear-and-convincing finding is clearly erroneous).
- Pine v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 379 S.W.3d 703 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (potential-harm need not be specifically identified and is assessed broadly).
- Schaible v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 444 S.W.3d 366 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (parental compliance with case plan does not alone prove ability to parent; credibility is for trial court).
- Ford v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 434 S.W.3d 378 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (adoptability is a required factor but not an essential element of best-interest determination).