Threadgill v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 426
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- DHS removed I.T. (born 2004) and her sister T.W. (born 1998) in July 2015 on neglect/failure-to-protect allegations after an investigation into sexual abuse of T.W.; Amanda (mother) had promised to keep the children away from her husband Isaiah but admitted they were seen with him.
- The circuit court adjudicated the children dependent-neglected in October 2015 based on past sexual abuse to T.W. and T.W.’s fear of returning home; reunification services and a case plan (drug testing, parenting classes, counseling, stable housing/income, visitation) were ordered.
- Review orders in December 2015 and April 2016 found Amanda was participating in services but continued instability (living with Isaiah; income issues). A fifteen-month permanency hearing in August 2016 found insufficient progress for reunification.
- DHS filed to terminate Amanda’s parental rights in September 2016, alleging failure-to-remedy and the “subsequent-factors” statutory ground. After a hearing, the court terminated Amanda’s rights in December 2016, finding ongoing instability, substance use, domestic-violence history, and that additional time would not achieve reunification.
- Amanda appealed only the sufficiency of DHS’s proof on termination grounds, arguing DHS failed to provide appropriate family services tailored to her drug addiction and volatile marriage; the court below found DHS had made meaningful efforts and provided services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Amanda) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved the "subsequent-factors" ground under Ark. Code § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(a) | DHS did not provide appropriate family services targeted to Amanda’s specific needs (drug treatment, services addressing abusive marriage) | Prior orders showed DHS made reasonable efforts; DHS provided multiple services and Amanda failed to disclose addiction until late in the case | Court affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supports that DHS offered appropriate family services and that subsequent factors justified termination |
| Procedural bar to challenging prior findings of DHS effort | (implicit) Amanda argues merits of service adequacy may be reviewed because she raised the issue at termination hearing | DHS argues failure to appeal earlier review/permanency orders precludes relitigation of findings of reasonable efforts | Court held Amanda did not waive the issue (orders lacked Rule 54(b) certification) and reached the merits |
| Whether additional time would likely achieve reunification | Amanda requested three more months for services | DHS and court found prior efforts and ongoing turmoil made reunification unlikely with more time | Court found trial court did not clearly err in concluding extra time would not result in reunification |
| Necessity of addressing drug addiction as part of "appropriate family services" | Amanda: DHS should have provided specific drug-treatment services earlier | DHS: Amanda failed to disclose meth addiction until September 2016; general services and counseling were available, including sessions addressing domestic violence | Court found DHS’s services were adequate under the statute given Amanda’s late disclosure and overall service array |
Key Cases Cited
- Knuckles v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 469 S.W.3d 377 (Ark. App. 2015) (standard of review and burden in parental termination cases)
- M.T. v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 952 S.W.2d 177 (Ark. App. 1997) (statutory standards for termination and necessity of proof)
- Sanford v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 474 S.W.3d 503 (Ark. App. 2015) (only one statutory ground is necessary to terminate parental rights)
- Schubert v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 357 S.W.3d 458 (Ark. 2009) (appealability of disposition, review, and permanency orders under Rule 6-9 and Rule 54(b))