Thomas v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2012 Ark. App. 309
Ark. Ct. App.2012Background
- DHS removed Thomas's children in March 2010 due to alleged substance misuse and mental-health concerns, with a positive methamphetamine test from the mother.
- An emergency custody order was issued and a subsequent adjudication found the children dependent-neglected and that return to Thomas was contrary to their welfare.
- Thomas was ordered to comply with a case plan including drug treatment, counseling, testing, and parenting classes; fathers were ordered to participate in hair-test and classes.
- In 2010–2011, the children were placed with their respective fathers under ongoing supervision and review orders continued, with progress reports favorable for the fathers’ homes.
- By August 2011, the circuit court awarded permanent custody to the fathers (R.B. and S.B. to Bryant; K.T. to Thomas's ex-husband Paul Thomas) and granted Thomas standard visitation, finding reunification inappropriate.
- Thomas challenged the court’s findings on appeal, arguing misstatement of evidence and consideration of non-record facts, but the court affirmed, concluding permanent custody was in the children's best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the court rely on prior hearings and evidence beyond the appellate record? | Thomas asserts misstatement and reliance on non-record facts. | The hearings build on one another; prior findings are elements of later decisions. | Yes; the court properly considered the cumulative record. |
| Did the court properly disregard conflicting initial affidavits and hair tests? | Thomas argues the initial adverse findings were contradicted by later tests and should control. | The court could disregard contradictory results and maintain the dependency-neglect findings. | Yes; the court could disregard contradictory tests and uphold prior findings. |
| Is there substantial evidence supporting an award of permanent custody to the fathers? | Thomas contends the evidence does not support permanent custody. | The record shows the children thriving under the fathers' care and lack of progress in Thomas's case plan. | Yes; the evidence supports placement with the non-offending parents as in the children's best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Osborne v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 98 Ark.App. 129 (2007) (dependency-neglect findings and appellate review on abuse of discretion)
- Chastain v. Chastain, 2012 Ark.App. 73 (2012) (greater deference to trial court credibility determinations in custody cases)
- Lewis v. Ark Dep’t of Human Servs., 364 Ark. 243 (2005) (appeal from dependency-neglect order; finality of court's order)
- Moiser v. Ark Dep’t of Human Servs., 95 Ark.App. 32 (2006) (de novo standard of review for equity matters in juvenile cases)
- Stewart v. Ark Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 577 (2011) (deference to circuit court’s factual findings in welfare decisions)