Taffner v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2016 Ark. 231
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Chris and Anita Taffner are adoptive parents of five children; in January 2015 DHS removed the children after allegations that Chris sexually abused one child and Chris was arrested. DHS filed dependency-neglect and later termination petitions.
- At a February 18, 2015 adjudication hearing the parties stipulated to dependency-neglect facts; the trial court nonetheless heard testimony, found by clear and convincing evidence that Chris sexually abused B.T. and K.T., and found aggravated circumstances and that Anita was not protective. Neither parent appealed the adjudication order.
- DHS filed to terminate both parents’ rights; both argued at the termination hearing that they had received ineffective assistance of counsel at the adjudication, that the adjudication was not a meaningful hearing, and Anita sought recusal and raised confrontation (Sixth Amendment) claims.
- The circuit court denied Anita’s recusal motion, found the adjudication was a meaningful hearing, and entered orders terminating both parents’ rights. Both parents appealed.
- The Supreme Court: affirmed the termination order, declined to reach the ineffective-assistance claims on the merits because the trial court did not make a developed ruling and the claims were not fully developed below (and Rule 60 relief was not sought timely), affirmed denial of recusal, and declined to extend the Sixth Amendment confrontation right to termination proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel at adjudication | Chris/Anita: trial counsel was unprepared, failed to investigate/call witnesses, failed to advise of appeal rights; this tainted subsequent proceedings | DHS/Ct: parents did not develop the claim or obtain a trial-court ruling; no timely Rule 60 relief; nothing properly preserved for appellate review | Court declined to reach the merits; ineffective-assistance claims not considered because trial court did not hold an evidentiary ruling and issues were not developed below |
| Whether adjudication hearing was "meaningful" | Chris/Anita: adjudication was not meaningful due to counsel failures and procedural defects | DHS/Ct: both had counsel, opportunity to cross-examine, long hearing; adjudication was meaningful and not appealed | Court affirmed trial-court finding that adjudication was meaningful |
| Judicial recusal (bias) — Anita | Anita: judge displayed bias, interfered with presentation, insulted counsel, and made rulings demonstrating prejudice | DHS/Ct: adverse rulings alone insufficient to show bias; no objective proof of prejudice | Court affirmed denial of recusal; no objective evidence of bias shown |
| Sixth Amendment confrontation right extension | Anita: hearsay testimony of investigators substituted for children’s testimony and denied right to confront child witnesses | DHS/Ct: Sixth Amendment applies to criminal prosecutions; should not be expanded to termination proceedings | Court declined to extend the Sixth Amendment confrontation right to parental-termination proceedings and affirmed trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- Trout v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 359 Ark. 283 (2004) (termination is an extreme remedy; burden on movant)
- Jones v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 361 Ark. 164 (2005) (recognized right to effective counsel in termination cases and discussed Strickland standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- Dinkins v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 344 Ark. 207 (2001) (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Crawford v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 330 Ark. 152 (1997) (parental rights vs. child welfare; limits on enforcement of parental rights)
Affirmed.