Sonya Owen v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Child
587 S.W.3d 586
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Newborn JN (b. Feb. 19, 2018) was removed from mother Sonya Owen after hospital staff and DHS reported concerns about inadequate feeding, poor hygiene, and Owen’s developmental delays and mental-health issues.
- DHS placed JN in emergency custody, and JN was adjudicated dependent-neglected; Owen was given a reunification plan (parenting classes, drug screens, stable housing/employment, counseling).
- DHS filed an initial termination petition in April 2018; that petition was denied in July 2018 but custody remained with DHS because return was contrary to JN’s welfare.
- A second termination petition was filed Jan. 9, 2019, alleging (1) subsequent factors showing Owen could not remedy conditions and (2) aggravated circumstances; after a Feb. 2019 hearing the circuit court terminated Owen’s parental rights, finding aggravated circumstances based on her low level of functioning, poor decision-making, unstable housing, substance use, and inability to care for herself or JN.
- Owen appealed solely arguing the circuit court erred by not appointing a guardian ad litem for her given her developmental delays; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the claim was unpreserved and the Wicks exception did not apply where the parent was represented by counsel and had litigated accommodations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not appointing a guardian ad litem for Owen | Owen: Her developmental delays and mental deficiencies required a guardian ad litem; the court should have sua sponte appointed one (Wicks exception). | DHS: Owen had counsel who actively litigated ADA accommodations and services; no sua sponte duty to appoint GAL where parent is represented and issues were litigated. | Affirmed — issue not preserved; Wicks exception not met where parent was represented by counsel and litigated accommodations. |
| Whether sufficiency of the evidence supports termination | Owen: (no preserved sufficiency argument on appeal). | DHS: Evidence supported aggravated-circumstances finding and best-interest conclusion. | Not reached on the merits; appellant abandoned any sufficiency argument. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 555 S.W.3d 915 (Ark. App. 2018) (standard of review for TPR cases and deference to circuit court findings)
- Wicks v. State, 606 S.W.2d 366 (Ark. 1980) (exceptions to contemporaneous-objection rule where error is flagrant and trial court should act sua sponte)
- Sills v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 538 S.W.3d 249 (Ark. App. 2018) (preservation rule for issues raised first on appeal in DHS termination cases)
- Edwards v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 480 S.W.3d 215 (Ark. App. 2016) (articulating the Wicks exceptions and their narrow application)
- Welvaert v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 530 S.W.3d 382 (Ark. App. 2017) (Wicks exceptions are rare in DHS termination appeals)
- Pratt v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 413 S.W.3d 261 (Ark. App. 2012) (clarifying limits of applying Wicks in termination appeals)
- Weathers v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 433 S.W.3d 271 (Ark. App. 2014) (supreme court has not applied Wicks exception in DHS termination cases where the parent was represented by counsel)