Smith v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
523 S.W.3d 920
Ark. Ct. App.
2017

Background

  • ADHS removed A.S. (born ~2014) from Britney Smith's home in Aug. 2015 after reports of drug use, environmental neglect, and a family member briefly absconding with the child; an ex parte emergency custody order and probable-cause finding followed.
  • Circuit court adjudicated A.S. dependent-neglected; services and a reunification case plan were ordered (drug screens, counseling, parenting classes, stable housing/employment, weekly contact).
  • Appellant made intermittent progress: some counseling and employment, completion of parenting classes, but multiple positive drug screens, inconsistent visitation, unstable housing/employment, and a history with ADHS.
  • After placement first with relatives then with nonrelative foster parents, the court changed the goal to adoption in May 2016; ADHS filed a termination-of-parental-rights (TPR) petition May 21, 2016.
  • At the Sept. 2016 TPR hearing appellant had begun inpatient treatment one month earlier, claimed ~13 weeks’ sobriety, planned transitional housing (Sober Living) that could allow reunification within weeks, and argued for more time; ADHS emphasized ongoing instability.
  • The circuit court terminated appellant’s parental rights (Oct. 19, 2016); on appeal appellant challenged only the sufficiency of best-interest evidence, focusing on the potential-harm element. Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether TPR was in child’s best interest (potential-harm factor) Smith: her sobriety, separation from husband, counseling, completed parenting classes, and available transitional housing made reunification feasible; potential harm speculative ADHS: child needed permanency; appellant’s recent, minimal stability and prior history with ADHS made further delay harmful to the child Held: Affirmed. Court found evidence supported potential-harm and permanency concerns; awaiting future improvement would leave child in harmful uncertainty
Whether likelihood of adoption supported TPR Smith did not contest adoptability ADHS: child was adoptable and foster family interested in adoption Held: Adoptability found and not challenged on appeal; supports best-interest finding
Sufficiency of overall best-interest evidence Smith: argued clear-and-convincing proof lacking because of recent progress ADHS: overall record (time in custody, minimal progress, instability) met best-interest standard Held: Court held overall evidence, viewed forward-looking, met clear-and-convincing standard
Whether trial court erred by not granting additional time Smith: requested more time to allow inpatient program and transitional services to effect reunification ADHS: additional delay would prolong instability and harm child’s need for permanency Held: Court found “wait-and-see” approach not in child’s best interest and affirmed denial of more time

Key Cases Cited

  • McFarland v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 91 Ark. App. 323, 210 S.W.3d 143 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005) (best-interest is based on overall evidence, not proof of each statutory factor)
  • Pine v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 781, 379 S.W.3d 703 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (potential-harm factor need not be proven by clear-and-convincing evidence)
  • Samuels v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2014 Ark. App. 527, 443 S.W.3d 599 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (potential-harm analysis is forward-looking and considered broadly)
  • Albright v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 97 Ark. App. 277, 248 S.W.3d 498 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007) (only one statutory ground needed to terminate)
  • Fenstermacher v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2013 Ark. App. 88, 426 S.W.3d 483 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013) (appellate court may affirm TPR on any proved ground alleged in petition)
  • Lively v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 131, 456 S.W.3d 383 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (best-interest element required even when statutory grounds are proven)
  • Bearden v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 317, 42 S.W.3d 397 (Ark. 2001) (children’s need for permanency can outweigh parent’s request for more time)
  • Garrett v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. App. 401, 499 S.W.3d 659 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (court considers whether return can occur within a reasonable time from child’s perspective)
  • Basham v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. App. 232, 490 S.W.3d 330 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (prolonged uncertainty is not in child’s best interest)
  • Coleman v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 851, 379 S.W.3d 778 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (parental improvement as TPR becomes imminent may not outweigh failure to remedy causes of removal)
  • Henson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2014 Ark. App. 225, 434 S.W.3d 371 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (factfinder may credit all, part, or none of witness testimony)
  • Benedict v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 96 Ark. App. 395, 242 S.W.3d 305 (Ark. Ct. App. 2006) (unchallenged adoptability finding must be affirmed)
Read the full case