Solee v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 640
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- ADHS removed five of Candace Solee’s six children in Feb 2016 (ages ranged infant–teen) after truancy and prior findings of environmental/educational neglect and concerns about drug exposure and parental unfitness.
- Children were adjudicated dependent-neglected in April 2016; the court required intensive services and separate supervised visits due to severe behavioral problems and elopement risk among the three eldest.
- Over the case the three oldest demonstrated ongoing serious behavior issues (placements, suspensions, one placed in an acute residential facility); Solee had intermittent work, was in outpatient treatment, and had inconsistent drug-test results (negative urine, positive hair).
- In Feb 2017 the court changed permanency goals for five children to adoption (one child to father); ADHS filed a termination-of-parental-rights (TPR) petition alleging unfitness and that adoption could provide permanency.
- At the April 2017 TPR hearing ADHS adoption specialist Jessica Warren testified she ran the children through DHS’s data-matching system and found adoption “potential” and identified numerical “resources”; she did not quantify how the system accounts for severe behavioral issues.
- The trial court terminated Solee’s parental rights May 9, 2017, finding statutory grounds proven and that termination was in the children’s best interest, including a finding that adoption was a viable permanency plan; Solee appealed the adoptability/best-interest finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court’s best-interest finding (likelihood of adoption) was supported | Solee: adoption likelihood not shown — testimony only established possibility, not a real probability given serious behavioral issues | ADHS: evidence of adoptability presented via adoption specialist’s data-match results and consideration of factors; adoptability need not be proved by clear and convincing evidence | Court: Held adoptability evidence was sufficient; trial court considered it and did not err in best-interest finding |
| Whether adoptability must be proved by clear and convincing evidence | Solee: implied that stronger proof required to terminate parental rights | ADHS: adoptability is a factor to consider, not an essential element requiring clear-and-convincing proof | Court: Adoptability is not required to be proved by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether DHS must identify specific adoptive families before TPR | Solee: argued permanency not established absent showing of likely adoptive placements | ADHS: no statutory requirement to identify a family or complete placement before TPR | Court: No requirement to identify a specific adoptive family or complete placement at TPR hearing |
| Whether children’s behavioral issues bar adoptability finding | Solee: severe behavior and lack of improvement undermine adoptability conclusion | ADHS: behavior is one factor; data-match and specialist testimony show potential resources and no prohibiting factors | Court: Behavioral problems do not preclude finding adoptability where evidence addresses likelihood; court’s weighing not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2015 Ark. App. 725, 478 S.W.3d 272 (trial court must consider adoptability separately in best-interest analysis)
- Lively v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2015 Ark. App. 131, 456 S.W.3d 383 (adoptability consideration required in TPR best-interest finding)
- Cranford v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2011 Ark. App. 211, 378 S.W.3d 851 (reversed TPR where court’s best-interest finding regarding adoptability was erroneous)
- Johnson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 78 Ark. App. 112, 82 S.W.3d 183 (parental rights yield to child’s health/welfare when reasonable care is lacking)
- J.T. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (purpose of TPR is to provide permanency when return is inconsistent with child’s welfare)
- Tucker v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2011 Ark. App. 430, 389 S.W.3d 1 (adoptability is a factor, not an essential element requiring clear-and-convincing proof)
- Reed v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2012 Ark. App. 369, 417 S.W.3d 736 (no requirement to identify exact family willing to adopt at time of TPR)
- Sharks v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2016 Ark. App. 435, 502 S.W.3d 569 (no ‘‘magic words’’ or specific quantum required to support adoptability finding)
- McFarland v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 91 Ark. App. 323, 210 S.W.3d 143 (evidence that adoptive parents have been found is not required)
- Renfro v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2011 Ark. App. 419, 385 S.W.3d 285 (no requirement to prove a child will be adopted to support TPR)
- Blanchard v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2012 Ark. App. 215, 395 S.W.3d 405 (trial court may conclude juveniles likely to be adopted based on presented evidence)