Scarver v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2016 Ark. App. 474
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- DHS placed an emergency hold on L.G. and C.G. in Dec 2014 after parents were arrested on domestic violence charges; Scarver was also charged with aggravated assault over an alleged hammer attack.
- The court adjudicated the children dependent-neglected and set reunification as the goal, with Scarver agreeing to participate in Zero to Three for enhanced services.
- Preadjudication hearings in 2015 noted Scarver’s sporadic compliance and lack of progress on the case plan.
- DHS filed a petition to terminate parental rights in Aug 2015; a later amended petition added a ground based on twelve months out of custody with unsuccessful rehabilitative efforts.
- Permanency hearing in Oct 2015 changed the goal to termination and adoption; termination hearing was set for early 2016 and then held in Feb 2016.
- The circuit court found termination appropriate on three statutory grounds and in the children’s best interests; Scarver challenged on appeal via a no-merit brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination is supported by clear and convincing evidence and in the children’s best interests | DHS argues termination is warranted and in best interests. | Scarver argues lack of sufficient basis to terminate and plans for reunification. | Yes; best interests supported and evidence clear and convincing. |
| Whether at least one statutory ground supports termination | DHS contends multiple grounds were proven, including subsequent issues and persistent risk. | Scarver challenges grounds as insufficient or not proven. | Yes; the circuit court’s grounds were supported; at least one ground suffices. |
| Whether the record supports the court’s best-interest determination given the evidence | DHS relies on the likelihood of adoption and risk from Scarver’s instability. | Scarver asserts potential for reunification with services. | Supported; adoptability and ongoing risk support termination. |
| Whether the no-merit brief complies with procedural requirements and supports affirmance | No-merit brief properly addresses issues and any omitted adverse ruling is non-meritorious. | Scarver’s counsel seeks withdrawal; no argument challenging the brief’s adequacy. | Affirmed; no reversible error found; counsel's withdrawal granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207 (2001) (clear and convincing standard; deferential review of credibility)
- Meriweather v. Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 98 Ark. App. 328 (2007) (clear error standard on termination findings)
- Sartin v. State, 2010 Ark. 16 (2010) (no-merit briefing and de novo review in termination appeals)
- Hughes v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 526 (2010) (no-merit brief adequacy in termination cases)
- Houseman v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2016 Ark. App. 227 (2016) (affirming no-merit brief if adverse ruling non-meritorious)
- Geatches v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. App. 344 (2016) (recognizes de novo review in termination appeals)