Stephanie Yelvington v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Child
580 S.W.3d 874
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Six-year-old CY disclosed sexual abuse by his father; mother Stephanie Yelvington had told CY not to tell and failed to report or protect him despite knowing the father had prior true findings for child sexual abuse.
- DHS removed CY, adjudicated him dependent-neglected for sexual abuse, neglect, and parental unfitness, and found aggravated circumstances and a true finding for Yelvington’s failure to protect.
- CY improved substantially in foster care (better nutrition, school performance, reduced anxiety) and his therapist and CASA supported permanency via adoption.
- The circuit court changed the goal to termination of parental rights and adoption at a permanency-planning hearing, citing Yelvington’s intellectual-development disorder and inability to meet CY’s complex needs.
- DHS later petitioned to terminate Yelvington’s parental rights; the court terminated on grounds of sexual abuse and aggravated circumstances and found termination was in CY’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interest (potential-harm factor) | Yelvington argued termination was not necessary and she was making progress to care for CY | DHS argued past failure to protect and inability to meet CY’s needs created likely potential harm if returned | Court held termination was in CY’s best interest based on clear-and-convincing evidence of past failure to protect and risk of harm |
| Whether the permanency goal should be changed to termination and adoption | Yelvington claimed she demonstrated genuine, sustainable investment (counseling, classes, no-contact order, learning medical needs) | DHS and court stressed her intellectual limitations and inability to safely meet CY’s extensive needs despite some progress | Court affirmed change of goal to termination/adoption (preponderance standard) |
| Whether relative placement with stepsister (Adler) required maintaining reunification goal | Yelvington argued Adler’s willingness and relative placement made reunification feasible | DHS/court noted Adler interfered with DHS investigation, had no significant relationship with CY, and moving him would harm his progress | Court found relative placement inappropriate and not in CY’s best interest; declined placement with Adler |
Key Cases Cited
- Denen v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 527 S.W.3d 772 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (standard of review in termination appeals)
- Burleson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 535 S.W.3d 655 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (termination orders require clear-and-convincing proof)
- Vasquez v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 337 S.W.3d 552 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009) (best-interest factors include adoption likelihood and harm from return)
- Lansdell v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 502 S.W.3d 579 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (burden on parent to show genuine, sustainable investment to retain reunification goal)
- Bowman v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., ? S.W.3d ? (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (parent’s failure to protect supports finding of potential harm)
- Blasingame v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 542 S.W.3d 873 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018) (appellate courts will not reweigh evidence or upset credibility findings)
- Parnell v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 538 S.W.3d 264 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018) (past parental behavior relevant to risk of future harm)