Shawkey v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 2
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- D.S., born Jan. 23, 2015, was taken into DHS emergency custody Jan. 25, 2015; Richard Shawkey was later adjudicated the child’s father.
- Court-ordered case plan (July 2015) required paternity, stable housing/income/transportation, parenting classes, regular visitation, drug/alcohol assessment and treatment, random drug testing, psychological evaluation, and resolution of criminal charges.
- Shawkey submitted to paternity testing and was found to be the legal father but failed to complete ordered services, including no documented drug treatment and no parenting classes.
- Record contains 19 consecutive positive drug screens (Jan–Oct 2015) for THC, PCP, amphetamines, and methamphetamine; no negative screens documented.
- Shawkey’s visitation was sporadic and ceased after Oct. 6, 2015; he missed the permanency-planning and termination hearings and did not present evidence at termination.
- The circuit court terminated Shawkey’s parental rights (May 27, 2016), finding four statutory grounds including aggravated circumstances and concluding termination was in the child’s best interest due to adoptability and potential harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Shawkey) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported statutory grounds for termination | DHS failed to provide critical services (visitation); DHS missteps preclude finding aggravated circumstances or other grounds | Shawkey failed to comply with case plan: no treatment, 19 positive drug tests, prolonged lack of contact or visitation, and unknown housing/employment/transportation | Affirmed. At least one ground (aggravated circumstances) supported by clear and convincing evidence; court not clearly erroneous |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interest | No specific potential harm shown; DHS had little post-Nov 2015 contact and did not call Conway caseworker; lack of recent drug screens undermines harm finding | Child is adoptable; broad potential-harm analysis supported by ongoing drug addiction, chronic instability, failure to maintain contact, and lack of evidence of a safe home environment | Affirmed. Best-interest finding supported by clear and convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (de novo review standard for termination of parental rights)
- Pine v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 379 S.W.3d 703 (adoptability and potential harm are required factors in best-interest analysis)
- Tucker v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 389 S.W.3d 1 (adoptability is a factor, not an essential element)
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 947 S.W.2d 761 (appellate review—clear-and-convincing standard for findings)
- Kerr v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 493 S.W.3d 342 (credibility determinations reserved to factfinder)
- Contreras v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 474 S.W.3d 510 (proof of a single statutory ground is sufficient for termination)
- Stephens v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 427 S.W.3d 160 (parent’s past behavior as predictor of future behavior)