Strickland v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2018 Ark. App. 608
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Mother Strickland's parental rights were terminated by the trial court based on multiple statutory grounds (including twelve-month failure to remedy and aggravated circumstances) and a best-interest finding.
- The trial court found the child C.H. adoptable, that returning C.H. to Strickland posed substantial risk of serious harm, and that risk outweighed adoptability concerns.
- Foster family (Rebecca Wells) expressed interest in adopting C.H.; caseworkers testified C.H. was adoptable and had been open to adoption at times. C.H. submitted a letter expressing desire to return to family but not rejecting her foster mother.
- Strickland did not contest the statutory grounds for termination on appeal; she challenged the trial court’s best-interest determination.
- Strickland raised issues about adoptability evidence, the weight of adoptability in the best-interest analysis, statistics/studies about teen adoptions (not preserved below), and whether APPLA (another permanency goal) better served C.H.'s needs.
- The trial court concurrently set APPLA at a review hearing (child was 15 then), but APPLA is available only for children 16 or older; adoption is favored by statute for permanency when return home is contrary to child’s welfare.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Strickland) | Defendant's Argument (DHS / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in C.H.'s best interest | Trial court lacked sufficient evidence of adoptability; adoption may not serve teen’s best interest; APPLA better for permanency | Trial court had testimony that C.H. is adoptable, foster family wants to adopt, and returning C.H. posed substantial risk | Affirmed: trial court’s best-interest finding not clearly erroneous |
| Whether adoptability must be established by clear and convincing evidence | Adoptability should be dispositive and requires strong proof | Adoptability is one factor; not required to be proven by clear and convincing evidence; caseworker testimony can suffice | Held: adoptability is not an essential element and need not meet clear-and-convincing standard |
| Whether the court treated adoptability as legally irrelevant | Court purportedly stated adoptability made no legal difference | Trial court in fact found adoptability and alternatively found risk of harm so great it outweighed adoptability | Held: no error—the court considered adoptability and alternatively justified termination on risk grounds |
| Whether unpublished statistics/studies affect best-interest finding | Legislative study and DCFS stats show teens often age out; adoption discouraged for teens, so termination not best interest | Such reports were not raised or admitted below; court cannot consider them for first time on appeal | Held: issue not preserved; appellate court declined to consider those statistics |
Key Cases Cited
- McGaugh v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 505 S.W.3d 227 (Ark. Ct. App.) (appellate standard: clear-error review where burden is clear and convincing)
- Lively v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 456 S.W.3d 383 (Ark. Ct. App.) (reversal of best-interest finding in different factual posture)
- McNeer v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 529 S.W.3d 269 (Ark. Ct. App.) (adoptability is one factor in best-interest analysis)
- Fisher v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 542 S.W.3d 168 (Ark. Ct. App.) (caseworker testimony sufficient to support adoptability finding; adoptability need not be shown by clear and convincing evidence)
- Edwards v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 480 S.W.3d 215 (Ark. Ct. App.) (arguments not raised below are generally not considered on appeal)
Affirmed.