Terry v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 591 S.W.3d 824

In Nov. 2017 two children were taken into DHS custody; Jonathan Terry was identified as the putative father of four‑year‑old A.T. and was reportedly incarcerated.
Court orders and DHS pleadings alternately labeled Terry as a "putative father," "father," or "parent," but no court ever made an express judicial finding that Terry was A.T.’s legal "parent."
DHS introduced prior dependency and review orders at the December 2018 termination hearing; Terry testified he believed he signed birth paperwork, had cared for A.T. until his 2017 arrest, and had never received most court orders or a case plan.
DHS caseworker conceded DHS had no record of offering services to or communicating with Terry while he was incarcerated.
The circuit court terminated Terry’s parental rights based on failure‑to‑remedy and subsequent‑factors statutory grounds and found termination was in the child’s best interest.
On appeal the court considered whether recent statutory changes (Act 541) applied and whether DHS proved Terry was a "parent" before terminating rights; the appellate court concluded Act 541 did not apply and reversed for lack of proof of parental status.

Issue	Terry's Argument	DHS's Argument	Held
Does Act 541 apply to this appeal?	Act 541 should not apply; case governed by pre‑Act law.	Act 541 could affect issues on appeal.	Act 541 does not apply; pre‑Act law governs this appeal.
Did DHS prove Terry is a "parent" under Ark. law so his rights could be terminated?	DHS failed to prove parental status (no birth certificate/acknowledgment/DNA/marriage; only Terry’s belief/testimony).	Terry effectively conceded paternity by testimony and was treated as a parent throughout the case.	DHS did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Terry is a legal "parent;" termination reversed.
Are procedural doctrines (invited error, inconsistent positions, waiver by not appealing earlier orders) bar Terry’s sufficiency challenge?	Procedural doctrines do not preclude raising sufficiency of proof on appeal; no prior express finding of parentage to appeal.	Terry invited or acquiesced to being treated as a parent; he waived challenge by not appealing earlier orders.	Appellate court rejected DHS’s procedural‑bar arguments and allowed the sufficiency challenge.
May sufficiency‑of‑evidence re parental status be raised for first time on appeal after a bench trial?	Yes; challenger may raise sufficiency in civil bench trial on appeal.	Argued waiver/forfeiture.	Court held the issue may be raised on appeal and reviewed de novo; DHS failed its burden.

Green v. Abraham, 43 Ark. 420 (old rule on applying intervening changes in law at time of appellate decision)
Goldsmith v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 302 Ark. 98 (post‑order statutory changes not applied where precedent directs otherwise in juvenile cases)
Tovias v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 575 S.W.3d 621 (DHS must prove a man is a "parent" before terminating parental rights)
Earls v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 518 S.W.3d 81 (termination is extreme remedy; parental rights standard)
Martin v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 515 S.W.3d 599 (in a civil bench trial sufficiency challenges may be raised on appeal)
Dupwe v. Wallace, 140 S.W.3d 464 (elements of inconsistent‑positions doctrine)