Singleton v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2015 Ark. App. 455
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Mother Kristina Singleton had prior DHS involvement as a foster child and had two earlier true findings of medical neglect concerning son D.A., who is severely to profoundly deaf.
- DHS removed her three children (D.A., H.M., and M.M.) after a report that H.M. was sexually abused by maternal grandfather Robert Ford while the children were left in his care.
- Court-ordered services required Singleton to learn sign language for D.A., maintain employment and transportation, attend therapy, and participate in visitations; the court later changed the permanency plan to termination and adoption.
- Over the case, the children were placed in foster/adoptive settings where D.A. and H.M. progressed; M.M. had behavioral-placement instability but was successfully placed by August 2014.
- At the termination hearing Singleton lacked a driver’s license, stable employment, reliable transportation, consistent counseling attendance, and had made minimal progress in sign language; she maintained contact with an abusive boyfriend.
- The circuit court found by clear and convincing evidence termination was in the children’s best interest (finding adoptability and potential harm if returned) and terminated Singleton’s parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in children’s best interest | Singleton: evidence focused on D.A.; at least M.M. and H.M. should be returned; DHS failed to provide sign-language classes; adoptability not proved | DHS: parent failed to become stable, safe caregiver; children are adoptable; potential harm from instability and poor communication with D.A. | Court: Affirmed — best-interest finding supported by clear and convincing evidence (considering adoptability and potential harm) |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207 (discussing de novo review of TPR cases)
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243 (credibility and appellate standard for TPR findings)
- Henson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 434 S.W.3d 371 (Ark. App. 2014) (factfinder’s credibility determinations in TPR cases)
- Smith v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 431 S.W.3d 364 (Ark. App. 2013) (adoptability as a factor, not an essential element, in best-interest analysis)
- Sarut v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 455 S.W.3d 341 (Ark. App. 2015) (potential-harm analysis need not identify specific harm)
- Ford v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 434 S.W.3d 378 (Ark. App. 2014) (case-plan compliance is not dispositive; focus is on whether parent is a stable, safe caregiver)
- Stephens v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 427 S.W.3d 160 (Ark. App. 2013) (past parental conduct as indicator of future behavior)