Shantel Redden v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children
589 S.W.3d 401
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- DHS opened a protective-services case after a true finding of threat of harm from the children’s putative father and a true finding of inadequate supervision by Shantel; children initially remained with mother while services were offered (counseling, drug screens, parenting classes).
- DHS removed the children on probable cause of dependency-neglect (Dec. 2017) and adjudicated them dependent-neglected (Feb. 2018); reunification was the initial goal and the mother was ordered to remain drug free, obtain stable housing/employment, participate in counseling, and resolve criminal charges.
- During the case Shantel repeatedly tested positive for methamphetamine/THC, had a youngest child test positive, and was arrested multiple times on drug-related and other charges; DHS alleged she avoided some scheduled drug screens.
- Reviews found partial compliance but continued illegal drug use, unstable housing and employment; in Dec. 2018 the permanency plan was changed to termination/adoption because the mother had not remedied conditions and the children showed trauma/behavioral effects.
- DHS petitioned to terminate parental rights (Jan. 2019); at the termination hearing the caseworker testified the children were adoptable, the mother remained unstable and using methamphetamine (including a positive test six days before the hearing), and that continued contact would be detrimental.
- The trial court terminated Shantel’s parental rights, finding clear-and-convincing proof of the statutory "subsequent factors" and twelve-month grounds and that termination was in the children’s best interest; the mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory ground under § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a) ("subsequent factors") was proven | Shantel: DHS relied on post-removal events improperly; limited post-removal drug testing (only two tests) insufficient to show sustained use or indifference/incapacity to remedy | DHS: Post-removal arrests, repeated positive meth tests, ongoing drug use, incarcerations, and failure to comply with case plan are subsequent factors showing placement with mother would be contrary to children’s welfare | Court affirmed: "subsequent factors" proven by clear and convincing evidence (instability, repeated meth use, multiple incarcerations showed incapacity/indifference) |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest | Shantel: Insufficient proof of potential harm if children returned; she is making progress and should be given more time | DHS: Continued drug use, instability, criminal arrests, and children’s need for permanency show potential harm and support termination | Court affirmed: termination was in children’s best interest; potential harm need not be actual harm and may be shown by continued drug use and lack of stability |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 430 S.W.3d 851 (de novo review of termination-of-parental-rights cases)
- Anderson v. Douglas, 839 S.W.2d 196 (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 947 S.W.2d 761 (appellate standard for reviewing clear-and-convincing findings)
- Yarborough v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 240 S.W.3d 626 (clearly erroneous standard on review)
- Brown v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 521 S.W.3d 183 (only one statutory ground needed to support termination)
- M.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 952 S.W.2d 177 (statutory requirement that at least one ground plus best interest be shown)
- Furnish v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 529 S.W.3d 684 (noncompliance with case plan and positive drug tests can support subsequent-factors ground)
- Middleton v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 572 S.W.3d 410 (potential harm includes lack of stability; past behavior may predict future harm)