Selsor v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 182
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- DHS removed two children (K.S., age 5; L.T., age 1) after L.T. was born with drugs in her system and both parents tested positive for methamphetamine; K.S. later tested positive as well.
- Parents (Lydia Selsor and Edward Troutman) stipulated to dependency-neglect and aggravated-circumstances findings and participated in services, achieved sobriety, and obtained employment.
- Despite services and over 15 months of case involvement, parents failed to obtain or maintain stable housing (multiple moves, two evictions, four homes) and lacked a home at the termination hearing.
- Court found parents had below-average cognitive abilities, and K.S. had developmental delays requiring stability and routine.
- DHS sought termination of parental rights; trial court found statutory grounds (including 12-month failure-to-remedy) and that termination was in the children’s best interest due to ongoing instability and parental lack of judgment.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, giving deference to the trial court’s credibility findings and concluding DHS proved best interest and at least one statutory ground by clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest | Selsor/Troutman: bonded with children, complied with case plan, deserved more time; needed one-time cash deposit to secure housing | DHS/Court: continued housing instability and parental judgment deficits pose future harm; permanency needed for children | Affirmed — termination was in children’s best interest |
| Whether DHS provided meaningful rehabilitative efforts (12‑month failure-to-remedy) | Parents: DHS failed to provide one-time cash assistance for housing deposit, so efforts were not meaningful | DHS: provided extensive services (treatment, referrals, housing authority, counseling, casework); deposit was considered but not provided based on caseworker’s account | Affirmed — DHS made meaningful efforts and parents failed to remedy the cause of removal |
| Whether poverty alone justified termination | Parents: termination was effectively punishment for being poor | DHS/Court: poverty alone is insufficient, but persistent inability to secure stable housing despite income, time, and services supports termination | Affirmed — termination based on housing instability and parental judgment, not poverty alone |
| Whether trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous under de novo review | Parents: testimony showed progress and potential for reunification with a little more time | DHS/Court: trial court’s credibility assessments and forward-looking harm analysis supported findings | Affirmed — appellate court not left with conviction court erred; findings supported by clear and convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Lively v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 456 S.W.3d 383 (Ark. Ct. App.) (standard of review and burden of proof in TPR cases)
- Spencer v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 426 S.W.3d 494 (Ark. Ct. App.) (best-interest factors: adoptability and potential harm on return)
- Vail v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 486 S.W.3d 229 (Ark. Ct. App.) (poverty alone cannot support best-interest finding)
- Linker-Flores v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 194 S.W.3d 739 (Ark.) (stable housing is a basic child need relevant to best interest)
- Latham v. Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 256 S.W.3d 543 (Ark. Ct. App.) (housing stability contrasts with child’s best interest)
- Carroll v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 148 S.W.3d 780 (Ark. Ct. App.) (housing and permanence considerations in TPR cases)
- Dowdy v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 314 S.W.3d 722 (Ark. Ct. App.) (forward-looking assessment of potential harm)
- Dunn v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 480 S.W.3d 186 (Ark. Ct. App.) (only one statutory ground needed to support termination)