Smith-Mcleod v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. & I.M.
571 S.W.3d 491
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Parents Stephanie Smith-McLeod and Gregory McLeod have a history of DHS involvement; their daughter I.M. was removed after the parents were arrested on February 27, 2017, with I.M. present.
- Parents stipulated that I.M. was dependent-neglected due to inappropriate supervision and inability to assume care because of arrest/incarceration; both were largely incarcerated during the case.
- The juvenile court changed the permanency goal to termination and adoption after finding no measurable progress toward reunification.
- DHS petitioned to terminate parental rights on two grounds: (1) twelve-month failure to remedy and (2) aggravated circumstances (little likelihood services would reunify). The trial court found both grounds proven and that termination was in I.M.’s best interest.
- On appeal, parents contested statutory grounds and best interest; the court affirmed, holding parents had invited error by conceding the twelve-month ground at trial and finding termination also supported by best-interest evidence (mother’s substance abuse, lack of stable housing/employment, limited services due to incarceration).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the twelve-month failure-to-remedy ground justified termination | Stephanie: she complied with the case plan and remedied conditions; Gregory: DHS must prove failure, he had ceased drug use and complied after release | Both: argued services or progress warranted more time | Court: Parents' counsel conceded at trial that twelve-month ground supported termination; under invited-error doctrine they cannot challenge it on appeal — ground sustained |
| Whether aggravated-circumstances ground supported termination | Stephanie: completed many services quickly and was diligently pursuing remaining ones; argued court erred finding little likelihood of reunification | Gregory: lack of opportunity while incarcerated, had complied post-release; past drug use alone insufficient to show little likelihood | Court: declined to reach merits because twelve-month ground is dispositive; affirmed termination on that basis |
| Whether termination was in child's best interest | Stephanie: sought more time; argued likely reunification with sibling E.M. soon, separation would be temporary | DHS/Court: mother’s ongoing substance abuse, limited completion of services, unemployment, lack of housing/transportation, and she admitted child should not be returned now | Court: termination was not clearly erroneous as to best interest given mother’s addiction, lack of stability, and insufficient progress |
| Whether procedural/statutory timeframe violations required reversal | Parents: raised delays and timing concerns | DHS/Court: precedent holds noncompliance typically does not mandate reversal | Court: noted repeated statutory timetable violations but did not reverse; concurrence urged legislative remedy for routine noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Dade v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 503 S.W.3d 96 (Ark. App. 2016) (standard of review in TPR appeals)
- Jackson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 503 S.W.3d 122 (Ark. App. 2016) (deference to trial court observations re: child welfare)
- Fox v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 448 S.W.3d 735 (Ark. App. 2014) (termination is extreme remedy; heavy burden on DHS)
- J.T. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 947 S.W.2d 761 (Ark. 1997) (two-step termination analysis: unfitness then best interest)
- Smith v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 431 S.W.3d 364 (Ark. App. 2013) (procedural framework for termination proceedings)
- Robinson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 520 S.W.3d 322 (Ark. App. 2017) (only one statutory ground necessary for termination)
- Miller v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 525 S.W.3d 48 (Ark. App. 2017) (statute’s aim to provide permanency for children)
- Parnell v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 538 S.W.3d 264 (Ark. App. 2018) (invited-error doctrine precluding challenge to undisputed ground)
- McKinney v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 527 S.W.3d 778 (Ark. App. 2017) (timely compliance with juvenile-code timeframes and appellate effect)
- Wright v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 560 S.W.3d 827 (Ark. App. 2018) (noting statutory timeframes are best practice but noncompliance rarely mandates reversal)