Smith v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2013 Ark. App. 753
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- DHS activated emergency hold on March 20, 2012 after parents were arrested for drug charges, including meth manufacture in the home.
- Parents Rebekah Smith and David Wiser remained incarcerated; Smith received 60 months with 120 suspended, Wiser 48 months with 60 suspended.
- January 29, 2013 permanency planning hearing shifted goal to adoption and authorized placement with the maternal grandmother in California.
- May 7, 2013 circuit court terminated parental rights based on clear and convincing evidence, including a finding of adoptability and the grandmother as a potential adoptive home.
- Court found both statutory grounds: >12 months of removal despite DHS efforts, and incarceration lasting a substantial portion of the children’s lives; also noted ongoing parental drug use and instability.
- Appeal reviewed de novo; termination is an extreme remedy requiring clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS’s alleged failure to aid reunification supports termination | Smith/Wiser rely on lack of meaningful reunification efforts | Termination supported by incarceration-based ground (viii) and need for permanent home | No error; alternative ground (viii) supports termination |
| Whether lack of explicit adoptability testimony defeats best-interest finding | No testimony that children were adoptable; reversal required | Court considered likelihood of adoption; adoptability not required as a separate element | Court properly considered adoption likelihood; not reversible for lack of explicit adoptability testimony |
| Whether the court properly weighed adoptability within best-interest analysis | Court found children adoptable and grandmother as adoptive placement; termination in best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 102 Ark. App. 337, 285 S.W.3d 277 (2008) (Ark. App. 2008) (adoptability not required to be proven separately in best-interest analysis)
- McFarland v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 91 Ark. App. 323, 210 S.W.3d 143 (2005) (Ark. App. 2005) (adoptability consideration within best-interest framework)
- Renfro v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 419, 385 S.W.3d 285 (Ark. App. 2011) (adoptability is one factor among many in best-interest determinations)
- Grant v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 227 (2010 Ark. App. 636) (grounds for termination supported by clear and convincing evidence)
- Welch v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 290 (2010 Ark. App. 798) (termination standard; de novo review; heavy burden on petitioning party)
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 947 S.W.2d 761 (1997) (two-step process: unfitness plus best-interests with adoptive considerations)