Scrivner v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2016 Ark. App. 316
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Father Timmy Scrivner appealed the termination of his parental rights to three children (born 2008, 2010, 2011); mother Laura Church’s rights were also terminated (not at issue here).
- DHS removed two children in April 2014 after evidence the mother smoked meth, lived in a known drug house, and a child suffered a burn; the third child was placed with the maternal grandmother.
- Scrivner was largely incarcerated during the proceedings and was ordered to comply with a case plan (housing, employment, drug treatment, psychological evaluation, parenting classes, drug testing, visits); the court found very limited compliance.
- At a permanency-planning hearing the court concluded Scrivner had not made measurable progress toward reunification; he attended only two visits during the review period and provided no proof of completing required services.
- DHS petitioned to terminate; the circuit court found returning the children to Scrivner would pose significant risk and that continued services were unlikely to result in reunification, and it terminated his parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for best interest | Scrivner: termination unnecessary because children placed with maternal grandmother; termination severs family ties and ends potential financial support; no proof he posed a credible threat | DHS/Court: children still in DHS custody; relative placement not guaranteed; Scrivner’s ongoing substance abuse, criminal history, repeated incarceration, lack of stable housing/employment, failure to complete case plan | Court: Affirmed — best-interest finding not clearly erroneous given evidence and credibility findings |
| Due process re: absence from permanency-planning hearing | Scrivner: prevented from attending hearing where goal changed from reunification to adoption/termination, violating due process | DHS/Court: Appellant’s notice of appeal designated only the termination order and did not preserve challenges to the permanency-planning hearing or its order | Court: Affirmed — issue not preserved for review because permanency-planning order was not designated in notice of appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 330 Ark. 152 (recognizing termination is an extreme remedy)
- Dinkins v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 344 Ark. 207 (de novo review of termination-of-parental-rights cases)
- J.T. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 329 Ark. 243 (requirement the court find unfitness and best interest by clear and convincing evidence)
- Baker v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 340 Ark. 42 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Lively v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 456 S.W.3d 383 (discussing when termination may be reversed despite relative placement)