Seago v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2011 Ark. 184
Ark.2011Background
- DHS filed emergency custody and dependency/neglect petitions for V.S., M.S., and N.S. in Miller County; petitions led to adjudication as dependent-neglected and removal from home, with TACM involvement.
- Permanency planning hearings shifted goals from reunification to APPLA for V.S. and to adoption for M.S. and N.S.; housing, employment, and independence from TACM were repeatedly identified as essential conditions.
- DHS offered services (psychological evaluations, counseling, parenting classes, housing and employment assistance); Seago’s compliance was partial and inconsistent, particularly regarding housing and independent employment.
- Final permanency orders in 2009-2010 determined reunification was not feasible; for M.S. and N.S., termination and adoption were deemed in their best interests after evidentiary findings.
- The circuit court denied Seago’s religious-liberty challenge to housing/employment requirements, found substantial noncompliance, and terminated parental rights; DHS was authorized to consent to adoption.
- Gina Baskin’s parental rights were also terminated by consent, but she is not a party to this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does termination violate Seago’s free-exercise rights? | Seago argues strict scrutiny applies and rights are overly burdened. | DHS contends housing/employment requirements are narrowly tailored to protect children. | No; state's compelling interest overrides, and termination upheld. |
| Are taped TACM recordings admissible as business records and admissible evidence? | Recordings are not business records of a private business. | Recordings qualify as business records and are properly authenticated. | Affirmed; recordings properly admitted under business-records exception. |
| Was the termination supported by clear and convincing evidence? | No evidence of actual mistreatment or danger; termination based on association and future risk. | Record shows failure to obtain independent housing/employment and ongoing endangerment risks. | Yes; clear and convincing evidence supports termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Posey v. Arkansas Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 370 Ark. 500 (2007) (clear-and-convincing standard; deference to circuit court’s credibility findings)
- Myers v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2011 Ark. 182 (2011) (affirmed; respecting strict application of termination standards)
- Thome v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 374 S.W.3d 912 (2010) (addressed religious-liberty balancing in TACM context)