Stockstill v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2014 Ark. App. 427
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- DHS removed D.S.2 and his two siblings in May 2012 for environmental neglect; case goal was reunification.
- Stockstill was identified as the father of D.S.2 following paternity testing introduced at a September 2012 hearing.
- Stockstill completed parenting classes and submitted to drug screens; by February 2013 he had begun visits, with further visitation decisions made in April 2013.
- Permanency planning on April 30, 2013 changed the goal to adoption; Stockstill had unstable housing and part-time employment, though he earned a transfer-truck-driver wage later.
- June 3, 2013 DHS petitioned for termination on the ground of subsequent factors (housing, income, anger issues) after Stockstill was established as legal father; the court noted missed visits and housing concerns.
- At the October 22, 2013 termination hearing, testimony indicated ongoing housing instability, missed visits, and anger issues; an adoption specialist testified the children were adoptable; the court found potential harm in returning the children to Stockstill and ultimately terminated parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in the children's best interests given adoptability | Stockstill contends adoptability was insufficiently proven. | DHS presented adoption evidence from workers and a specialist showing feasibility of adoption. | Adoptability supported; best interests favored termination. |
| Whether the court properly found potential harm if D.S.2 were returned to Stockstill | Stockstill had compliance with services and bond with child. | Housing instability and missed visits showed risk to health and safety if returned. | Court correctly found potential harm in returning the child. |
| Whether the 'subsequent factors' ground was proved by clear and convincing evidence | Stockstill argues DHS overgeneralized and failed to prove ongoing unfitness. | DHS showed ongoing housing/income issues and anger issues after establishing paternity. | Ground proved by clear and convincing evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weatherspoon v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 426 S.W.3d 520 (Ark. App. 2013) (premised on best-interest and adoptability standards in termination cases)
- Smith v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 431 S.W.3d 364 (Ark. App. 2013) (adoptability is one factor among several; need not be proven separately by clear and convincing evidence)
- Renfro v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 385 S.W.3d 285 (Ark. App. 2011) (context for evaluating best interests and multiple factors in termination decisions)
- Osborne v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 98 Ark. App. 129, 252 S.W.3d 138 (Ark. App. 2007) (heavy burden on party seeking termination; termination is extreme remedy)
- Fredrick v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 377 S.W.3d 306 (Ark. App. 2010) (review of challenged findings regarding services and case documentation)