Shaffer v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2016 Ark. App. 208
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Brandon Shaffer (father) appealed the termination of his parental rights to daughter HS (b. Oct. 2012); the mother consented to termination and is not a party on appeal.
- DHS removed HS in Feb. 2014 after law enforcement responded to Shaffer’s residence; the case remained open ~18 months before the Aug. 2015 termination hearing and Sept. 2015 order.
- Primary concerns were Shaffer’s methamphetamine use (five positive drug tests during the case), denial of a drug problem, sporadic visitation, poor contact with DHS, pending felony charges, no valid driver’s license, and unstable housing/employment.
- Shaffer completed some services (parenting classes, counseling) and obtained housing and employment shortly before termination; he had one negative hair-follicle test shortly before the hearing.
- Trial court found two statutory grounds proved under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B): (1) “aggravated circumstances” — little likelihood services will lead to reunification; and (2) “other factors” — subsequent issues showing placement with parent would be contrary to child’s welfare and parent showed incapacity or indifference despite offered services.
- Shaffer challenged the sufficiency of clear and convincing evidence for the statutory grounds; he did not contest the best-interest finding. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Shaffer) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports the “aggravated circumstances” ground (little likelihood services will reunify) | Shaffer pointed to recent compliance (housing, job, parenting classes, counseling) and a negative hair-follicle test showing ~3 months sobriety, arguing further services could succeed | DHS pointed to repeated positive meth tests, Shaffer’s persistent denial of a drug problem, failure to engage in inpatient rehab/NA/AA, and overall instability despite ~18 months of services | Court held evidence supported the aggravated-circumstances finding; little likelihood further services would result in reunification; affirmed |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supports the “other factors” ground (subsequent factors and incapacity/indifference despite services) | Shaffer argued partial compliance undermined the conclusion he was incapable/indifferent | DHS relied on pattern of instability, refusal to address substance abuse, noncompliance with case plan and orders, and failure to remediate subsequent issues | Court held sufficient evidence showed Shaffer was incapable or indifferent to remedying subsequent issues despite offered services; affirmed |
| Whether trial court clearly erred given standard requiring clear and convincing proof and de novo review | Shaffer argued the aggregate of recent compliance raised a distinct and firm conviction of error | DHS relied on precedent that past behavior predicts future behavior and child’s need for permanency can outweigh requests for more time | Court applied de novo review with deference to credibility findings and found no clear error; affirmed |
| Whether best-interest finding was unsupported | Shaffer did not contest best-interest finding | DHS and court noted child’s need for permanency and safety given father’s unresolved substance issues | Best-interest finding was uncontested and sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207 (Ark. 2001) (standard for reviewing termination appeals and clear-error deference)
- Anderson v. Douglas, 310 Ark. 633 (Ark. 1992) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Camarillo-Cox v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 360 Ark. 340 (Ark. 2005) (focus on whether parent has become a stable, safe parent)
- Stephens v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 427 S.W.3d 160 (Ark. App. 2013) (past behavior as indicator of future behavior in termination cases)
- M.T. v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 58 Ark. App. 302 (Ark. App. 1997) (requirement that at least one statutory ground and best interest be proved by clear and convincing evidence)
- Knuckles v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 469 S.W.3d 377 (Ark. App. 2015) (child’s need for permanency can override request for additional time)