Taylor v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2016 Ark. App. 453
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Mother Jessica Taylor had an open ADHS case after her first child A.T.1 was adjudicated dependent-neglected (June 2014) for inadequate housing and mental-health concerns; reunification and adoption were concurrent goals.
- ADHS removed newborn A.T.2 on June 1–9, 2015 after finding Taylor living in a camper without utilities, with reported mental instability; ADHS filed emergency custody/dependency-neglect for A.T.2 and a TPR petition on June 18, 2015.
- At the November 3, 2015 hearing the trial court adjudicated A.T.2 dependent-neglected (order later held to be a nullity on appeal for timing/jurisdiction reasons) and proceeded to terminate Taylor’s parental rights to both children.
- The trial court’s March 28, 2016 termination order relied on (1) the 12‑month failure-to‑remedy ground for A.T.1 and (2) the §9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii) “subsequent factors” ground for both children; trial findings emphasized inadequate housing, lack of income, and serious mental-health issues.
- On appeal the court: dismissed the attempted adjudication order for A.T.2 as void (nunc pro tunc entered after record lodged), affirmed termination as to A.T.1, and reversed/remanded termination as to A.T.2 for failure to satisfy the §(vii) requirements for that infant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Taylor) | Defendant's Argument (ADHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Validity of A.T.2 adjudication order | Adjudication at Nov. 3 hearing was proper and appeal includes it | N/A (ADHS filed nunc pro tunc later) | Dismissed: nunc pro tunc adjudication filed after record lodged is void; adjudication order is a nullity |
| 2) Adoptability evidence for best interest | Ms. Willis’s testimony of foster family “interest” is insufficient to show likelihood of adoption | Foster family interest is sufficient evidence of adoptability | Affirmed: caseworker testimony that foster family was interested provided enough evidence of adoptability |
| 3) Potential harm if returned | Appellant did not contest trial court’s finding of risk | ADHS argued inadequate housing, lack of income, mental illness, and medication noncompliance risk child safety | Affirmed: trial court’s potential-harm finding stands (appellant failed to challenge it) |
| 4) Statutory ground §9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii) ("subsequent factors") | Factors cited were the original removal reasons, not new subsequent issues; cannot apply to A.T.2 so soon after filing | For A.T.1 ADHS argues mental-health deterioration occurred after initial filing; for A.T.2 ADHS relied on same facts as A.T.1 | Mixed: affirmed as to A.T.1 (evidence of worsened mental health supported §(vii)); reversed/remanded as to A.T.2 (insufficient evidence that new factors arose or that services were offered in the short time after filing) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 492 S.W.3d 119 (Ark. Ct. App.) (standard of review in TPR appeals; de novo but reverse only if clearly erroneous)
- Schaible v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 444 S.W.3d 366 (Ark. Ct. App.) (credibility determinations reserved for trial court)
- Lively v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 456 S.W.3d 383 (Ark. Ct. App.) (low evidentiary threshold for adoptability but some evidence required)
- Cobbs v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 189 S.W.3d 487 (Ark. Ct. App.) (caseworker testimony that juveniles were adoptable can suffice)
- Fenstermacher v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 426 S.W.3d 483 (Ark. Ct. App.) (appellate court may affirm TPR on any proved ground alleged in petition)
- Mayberry v. Flowers, 65 S.W.3d 418 (Ark.) (parental custody is a fundamental natural right)
- Brumley v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 455 S.W.3d 347 (Ark. Ct. App.) (interpretation of §9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii) concerning timing of "subsequent factors")