Scott v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
552 S.W.3d 463
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- DHS removed three Scott children in 2016 after the mother tested positive for illegal drugs; prior DHS findings included inadequate supervision, neglect, medical neglect, and sexual abuse by the mother's boyfriend.
- Michael Scott admitted the children were dependent-neglected and was ordered to complete a case plan: random drug screens, parenting classes, stable housing/employment, psychological evaluation, counseling, and follow recommendations.
- Michael completed parenting classes, maintained housing and employment, and divorced Charla, but attended only 5 of 9 counseling sessions, missed many appointments, resisted therapy, and did not follow recommendations.
- Michael had recurrent domestic-violence contacts with Charla; although divorced, he had post-divorce contact with her and M.S. was found at his home as a runaway the night before the termination hearing.
- DHS petitioned to terminate parental rights in September 2017; at the November 2017 hearing the trial court found three statutory grounds (failure to remedy, subsequent factors, and aggravated circumstances) and that termination was in the children’s best interest due to adoptability and potential harm if returned.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Michael) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aggravated-circumstances ground proved | Michael: evidence limited to missed counseling and occasional contact with Charla, not sufficient | DHS: ongoing toxic relationship, domestic-violence history, missed counseling, lack of progress show little likelihood services will reunify | Court: Affirmed—aggravated circumstances supported; no clear error |
| Whether failure-to-remedy and subsequent-factors grounds proved | Michael: he completed most tasks and loves his children; counseling gaps excusable | DHS: partial compliance but insufficient progress; mental-health and relationship instability persisted | Court: Relied on these grounds (in addition to aggravated circumstances) in termination finding |
| Whether termination is contrary to children's best interest (potential harm) | Michael: therapist said not an immediate danger; no proof he would resume contact with Charla; children love him | DHS: past behavior, unresolved mental-health issues, and ongoing instability predict future harm; children are adoptable | Court: Potential harm shown; termination is in children’s best interest |
| Whether trial court erred as a matter of law or fact (standard of review) | Michael: challenges sufficiency of evidence | DHS: trial court entitled to deference on credibility and fact findings | Court: Reviewed de novo but gave deference; not left with firm conviction of error — decision affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Camarillo-Cox v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 360 Ark. 340 (trial-court credibility determinations entitled to deference)
- Sharks v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 502 S.W.3d 569 (proof of a single statutory ground suffices to terminate parental rights)
- Friend v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 344 S.W.3d 670 (parental-rights termination is extreme but may be required to protect child welfare)
- Henderson v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 377 S.W.3d 362 (child’s need for permanency can outweigh a parent’s request for more time)
- Shaffer v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 489 S.W.3d 182 (case-plan compliance is not dispositive; focus on whether parent is stable and safe)
- Harbin v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 451 S.W.3d 231 (past behavior may be used to predict potential harm if child returned to parent)