Schaible v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2014 Ark. App. 541
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- DHS involvement with Schaible began in 2009–2012 due to prenatal marijuana exposure of two older children, leading to voluntary termination of those rights in February 2012.
- The case for Z.B. started June 4, 2012 with a 72-hour hold after Z.B. tested positive for illegal substances at birth; Z.B. placed in foster care with a family who had adopted his half-sisters.
- DHS petitioned to terminate Schaible’s parental rights, and a September 2012 termination hearing followed; the court denied termination, finding Schaible largely compliant and setting case-plan goals.
- A final termination hearing occurred about a year later, with the court terminating Schaible’s parental rights on January 7, 2014, after extensive evidence of ongoing concerns.
- During the case, Schaible moved through a trial home placement and unsupervised visits; a six-week trial home placement ended after a relationship break-up and a float-trip incident involving alcohol.
- Therapies and care for Z.B., including occupational therapy for developmental delays, were central to the court’s assessment; Schaible admitted limited engagement with therapy and ongoing urges to use drugs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was clear and convincing evidence of best interests and grounds for termination | Schaible argues she complied with the case plan and remained drug-free for much of the period. | DHS emphasizes ongoing addiction issues, failure to complete treatment, and lack of sustained stability, supporting termination under statute. | Termination supported by clear and convincing evidence; best interest shown. |
| Whether the court abused its discretion by recalling the occupational therapist | Appellant contends recall testimony about Z.B.’s condition after visits was improper. | DHS argues court properly admitted recalled testimony; no abuse of discretion. | No abuse of discretion; recall properly admitted. |
| Whether Schaible's alleged compliance with the case plan forecloses termination | Schaible asserts substantial compliance and progress, including drug-free status and visits. | DHS notes gaps in treatment, NA/AA participation, therapy follow-through, and persistent risk factors. | Not determinative; overall failure to achieve stable, safe parenting justifies termination. |
| Whether other factors post-petition establish danger if returned | Appellant contends no new factors showing risk after petition. | Court credited post-petition concerns (instability, housing, relapse risk, lack of follow-through) as grounds. | Other factors established ongoing risk to health and safety. |
| Whether the appellate panel should disturb the circuit court’s credibility determinations | Ad-litem and witnesses favored Schaible’s fitness in some accounts; argues for more time or reversal. | Credibility of witnesses, including foster-parent testimony, supports termination. | Credibility assessments left to trial court; no reversal for credibility issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207 (2001) (de novo review of termination; clear and convincing standard)
- Smith v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 431 S.W.3d 364 (Ark. App. 2013) (best-interest factors; appellate standard)
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 947 S.W.2d 761 (198) (credibility determinations reserved for fact-finder)
- Ford v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 434 S.W.3d 378 (Ark. App. 2014) (stability and best interests; non-determinative of mere compliance)
- Dozier v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 372 S.W.3d 849 (Ark. App. 2010) (permanency vs. parent readiness considerations)
- Stephens v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 427 S.W.3d 160 (Ark. App. 2013) (prior behavior as predictor of future conduct)
- Thompson v. Arkansas Social Services, 282 Ark. 369 (1984) (parental rights are fundamental; preservation preferred unless necessary)
- Jones v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 205 S.W.3d 778 (2005) (fundamental liberty interest in parental rights)
- Camarillo-Cox v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 360 Ark. 340 (2005) (constitutional protection of parental rights)
- Trout v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 283 (2004) (termination standards and considerations)
- Linder v. Linder, 348 Ark. 322 (2002) (child welfare considerations and parental fitness)
- Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Huff, 347 Ark. 553 (2002) (comprehensive review of grounds and best interests)