Thompkins v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2014 Ark. App. 413
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Appellants Karen Thompkins and Nelson Frazier appeal the termination of their parental rights to D.F. and T.F.; both counsel-filed no-merit briefs and seek relief from counsel; appeals affirmed.
- DHS filed emergency custody on February 6, 2012 after Karen left the children with grandmother for about four weeks and the older child was found walking in the road; ex parte order issued the same day.
- Adjudication followed on March 22, 2012, with the children declared dependent-neglected; Karen’s probation was revoked for meth use and she was incarcerated through February 2013; Nelson was arrested for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl during the pendency.
- DHS petitioned to terminate on June 17, 2013; termination hearing held October 8, 2013; order terminating rights entered January 13, 2014, finding best interests and proven statutory grounds.
- Trial court found two statutory grounds under § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B) for both parents (ongoing removal and unremedied conditions; subsequent factors rendering return contrary to health, safety, or welfare), plus Nelson’s related sentence ground; despite multiple grounds, the court affirmed termination on the strongest ground of ‘other factors’ due to prolonged removal and failure to remedy conditions.
- Record showed drug use by both parents, poor case-plan compliance, no visitation, and adoptability evidenced by DHS caseworker; court concluded termination was in the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there clear and convincing evidence to terminate? | Thompkins; termination supported by evidence showing failure to remedy and best interests. | DHS; proper termination under statutory grounds and best interests. | Yes; clear and convincing evidence supported termination. |
| Did the trial court properly apply the ‘other factors’ ground under § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(viii)? | Thompkins; evidence shows prolonged removal and incapacity to remedy. | DHS; other factors supported termination given lack of remedy and danger to children. | Yes; other factors ground supported as to both parents. |
| Was the challenged evidentiary ruling regarding Karen's testimony reversible error? | Thompkins; relevancy objection should have been sustained. | DHS; ruling was proper and non-prejudicial. | No reversible error; ruling was not prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2014 Ark. App. 199 (Ark. App. 2014) (de novo review standard in termination cases)
- M.T. v. Ark Dep’t of Human Servs., 952 S.W.2d 177 (Ark. 1997) (clear and convincing evidence standard in termination cases)
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 947 S.W.2d 761 (Ark. 1997) (appellate review to determine if evidence supports findings)
- Anderson v. Douglas, 839 S.W.2d 196 (Ark. 1992) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)