Terrones v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 115
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In July 2015 DHS took emergency custody of M.T. and J.T. after the children’s mother, Kayla Jackson, was hospitalized for seizures, expressed suicidal ideation, and admitted methamphetamine use; children had been living with Juan Terrones.
- The children were adjudicated dependent-neglected in August 2015; the court found aggravated circumstances and ordered services for Terrones (psych eval, drug/alcohol assessment and screens, parenting classes, stable housing).
- DNA testing established Terrones as the father of M.T. and J.T.; permanency efforts continued but the goal was changed to termination in May 2016.
- DHS filed to terminate Terrones’s parental rights alleging multiple statutory grounds, including the subsequent-factors ground; termination hearing occurred July 2016.
- Evidence included Terrones’s psychological evaluation (concern about limited understanding of mother’s drug use and inability to independently parent without supervision), incomplete compliance with the case plan, continued relationship with Jackson (they had another child during the proceedings who tested positive at birth), intermittent visitation, and DHS testimony that appropriate services had been provided earlier.
- The circuit court terminated Terrones’s parental rights (failure-to-remedy, aggravated-circumstances, and subsequent-factors grounds) and found termination was in the children’s best interest; Terrones appealed.
Issues
| Issue | DHS (Plaintiff) Argument | Terrones (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the subsequent-factors ground (Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a)) was proved | Subsequent issues (mother’s continued drug use and birth of drug-exposed infant) arose after original petition; appropriate services had been offered earlier; Terrones was indifferent/incapable of remedying factors | DHS failed to offer appropriate services (English classes, immigration help); DHS offered insufficient proof Terrones was indifferent or incapable of remedying issues | Affirmed: court found appropriate services previously adjudicated; evidence supported Terrones’s indifference/incapacity and subsequent-factors ground |
| Whether DHS had to reprove at termination that reasonable/appropriate services were offered | Relied on earlier permanency-planning finding that DHS made reasonable efforts | Terrones argued DHS had affirmative duty at termination to prove services (and lacked counsel earlier) | Affirmed: prior permanency-planning finding that DHS made reasonable efforts stood; failure to object at termination waived challenge |
| Whether evidence supported best-interest determination (including potential harm of return) | Termination served children’s best interest; children adoptable; risk to health/safety from returning to Terrones supported termination | Terrones argued lack of specific demonstrated potential harm and that adoptability alone insufficient | Affirmed: best-interest finding supported by clear and convincing evidence; potential-harm analysis need not specify a particular harm; subsequent-factors evidence supports best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Meriweather v. Arkansas Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 98 Ark. App. 328, 255 S.W.3d 505 (2007) (standard for reversing termination is clear error)
- Bell v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. App. 113, 484 S.W.3d 704 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (elements of subsequent-factors ground)
- Yarbrough v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. App. 429, 501 S.W.3d 839 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (prior factual findings on services need not be reproved at termination)
- Contreas v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 604, 474 S.W.3d 50 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (same principle regarding prior findings)
- Tadlock v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 841, 372 S.W.3d 403 (continuing relationship with drug‑using parent supports termination)
- Pine v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 781, 379 S.W.3d 703 (potential-harm inquiry is broad; specific harm need not be identified)
- Taffner v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. 231, 493 S.W.3d 319 (ineffective-assistance claims must be raised first in circuit court)