Spencer v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2013 Ark. App. 96
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- DHS took four children into custody after Bradley Spencer’s drug arrest in Feb 2010; environmental neglect concerns and inadequate supervision were alleged.
- Adjudication found the children dependent-neglected; custody placed with maternal grandmother Deborah Wofford with various conditions.
- In June 2010, DHS sought emergency custody change after two incidents of the children unsupervised with their mother; custody returned to DHS after best-interest finding.
- Over the next two years, the case included several review and permanency-planning hearings; parents partially complied but core issues persisted (housing, employment, sobriety).
- A.S. was briefly placed with Carrie on a trial basis but failed due to continued drug use and noncompliance; the goal shifted to termination and adoption.
- DHS filed a petition to terminate parental rights on April 18, 2012; a June 29, 2012 hearing resulted in termination of rights for both Bradley and Carrie Spencer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to terminate | Bradley contends evidence does not prove termination grounds or best interest. | DHS argues grounds were proven and termination is in children’s best interest. | Termination supported by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Permanent plan and adoptability consideration | Spencer argues permanency plan misapplied due to multiple foster homes and lack of clear plan for siblings. | DHS shows adoptability and sibling-group adoptive prospects were considered; plan adequate. | Adequate permanency planning and adoptability supported termination. |
| Best interests analysis for Bradley | Bradley asserts he made progress (employment, counseling, drug tests) and should be favored for reunification. | Court emphasized housing instability, lack of bedding, and incomplete counseling as barriers. | Termination in children’s best interests affirmed. |
| Carrie’s grounds and conduct post-removal | Carrie argues termination is improper; claims limited grounds suffice. | Carrie admitted drug use, falsified tests, and employment delays; history shows indifference to remedy. | Grounds proven and termination upheld for Carrie. |
Key Cases Cited
- Camarillo-Cox v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 360 Ark. 340, 201 S.W.3d 391 (2005) (clear and convincing standard; parental unfitness in termination context)
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (1997) (two-step process; grounds plus best interest)
- Reid v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 201 Ark. 187, 380 S.W.3d 918 (2011) (best interests analysis and consideration of adoptability)
- McFarland v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 91 Ark.App. 323, 210 S.W.3d 143 (2005) (weight given to overall evidence in best-interest assessment)
- Trout v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 283, 197 S.W.3d 486 (2004) (emphasizes absence of stable housing and employment as factors)
- Carroll v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 85 Ark.App. 255, 148 S.W.3d 780 (2004) (caregiving failure as contrary to child’s best interests)
- Watkins v. Dudgeon, 270 Ark. 516, 606 S.W.2d 78 (1980) (parental rights not proprietary; duties to child)
- Pender v. McKee, 266 Ark. 18, 582 S.W.2d 929 (1979) (presumption of parental care; court may intervene)
- Grisby v. State, 38 Ark. 406 (1882) (presumption of parental duty; intervention when duties are not discharged)
- Jones v. Jones, 13 Ark.App. 102, 680 S.W.2d 118 (1984) (juvenile permanency and parental rights framework)