Stanley v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2016 Ark. App. 581
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Children T.S. (b. 2005) and C.S. (b. 2006) were removed after DHS investigations in 2013 and again in 2015 for environmental neglect, lack of utilities, inadequate food, and parental drug use; appellants are Timothy Stanley (father) and Jennifer Long (mother).
- 2013 case: services were provided and the children were returned; court previously found parents unfit and psychologists criticized parental capacity.
- July 2015 removal: home described as "deplorable" with no electricity, gas, or running water; Stanley tested positive for multiple controlled substances; DHS obtained emergency custody and later adjudicated the children dependent-neglected.
- DHS filed to terminate parental rights in March 2016; trial court found aggravated circumstances, continued services earlier but ultimately terminated both parents’ rights in May 2016.
- On appeal, both parents challenge the court’s "best-interest" findings: (1) likelihood of adoptability of the children; (2) (Stanley only) whether there was clear-and-convincing evidence of potential harm if children were returned to him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported a finding that the children were likely adoptable (best‑interest adoptability factor) | Long: former caseworker’s statement that children were "adoptable" was a bare/conclusory assertion insufficient to prove likelihood of adoption | DHS: former caseworker, foster mother, and therapist testimony about children’s progress, behavior, and personalities supported adoptability | Court: Affirmed — testimony about improvements, personalities, and an express adoptability opinion supported the court’s consideration that adoption was likely; adoptability factor need not be proved by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether returning children to Stanley posed potential harm (best‑interest potential‑harm factor) | Stanley: he was making progress; the court impermissibly relied on past removals rather than current proofs of safety | DHS: history of repeated environmental neglect, drug use, psychological evaluations, and recurrence of past issues make future harm likely; permanence for children outweighs giving more time | Court: Affirmed — potential harm need not be proved as actual harm, past conduct and recurrence predict future risk; permanency concerns justify termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 434 S.W.3d 378 (Ark. App. 2014) (review standard for termination-of-parental-rights cases).
- Weatherspoon v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 426 S.W.3d 520 (Ark. App. 2013) (definition and burden of clear-and-convincing evidence).
- Renfro v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 385 S.W.3d 285 (Ark. App. 2011) (adoptability must be considered but need not be proved by clear-and-convincing evidence).
- Hamman v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 435 S.W.3d 495 (Ark. App. 2014) (adoptability and best-interest analysis principles).
- McElwee v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 489 S.W.3d 704 (Ark. App. 2016) (past parental behavior can predict potential harm).
- Loveday v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 435 S.W.3d 504 (Ark. App. 2014) (child’s need for permanency may outweigh requests for more time to remedy parental deficiencies).