Tijuanna Crawford v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children
588 S.W.3d 383
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- DHS removed four children from Tijuanna Crawford in September 2016 (mother was incarcerated); maternal grandmother was found an unfit caregiver.
- DHS provided reunification services for ~2½ years; children remained in foster care and some received therapeutic services.
- Psychological evaluation showed extremely low IQ, substance abuse (marijuana and cocaine), bipolar disorder, and a recommendation for supervised visitation and treatment; Crawford repeatedly failed to engage in consistent treatment or stable housing/employment and had multiple drug-positive tests and incarcerations.
- In March 2019 the Miller County Circuit Court terminated Crawford’s parental rights as to four children, finding DHS proved four statutory grounds under Ark. Code § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B) and that termination was in the children’s best interest.
- Crawford appealed only on procedure: she argued the circuit court’s written order lacked express findings of fact supporting the statutory grounds and best-interest conclusion.
- The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Crawford waived the right to detailed written findings by not timely requesting them and (2) de novo review of the record supports the statutory grounds (focusing on the subsequent-other-factors ground) and the best-interest finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Crawford) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was required to make express written findings of fact in the termination order | The written order failed to state specific factual findings supporting statutory grounds and best-interest conclusion; reversal and remand required | No request for special findings was made; absent a timely Rule 52 request or statutory mandate, the court was not required to make detailed findings; appellate court will presume necessary findings | Court held Crawford waived the right to express findings by not requesting them; appellate court may presume/support findings and review record de novo; no reversal required |
| Whether DHS proved a statutory ground (subsequent-other-factors) by clear and convincing evidence | Insufficient evidence to show subsequent factors made placement contrary to children’s welfare or that Crawford was incapable/indifferent to remedy them | Record shows new and continuing factors (drug use, re-arrest, incarceration, untreated mental-health/substance issues, instability, inconsistent visits) that prevented reunification despite services | Court found clear and convincing evidence supports the subsequent-other-factors ground; affirmed |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interest | Termination undue without explicit findings tying facts to best-interest factors | Evidence showed stability in foster placements, children receiving needed services, adoption likely for younger children, and potential harm if returned to Crawford | Court held the best-interest finding was supported by the record and not clearly erroneous; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Chaffin v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 471 S.W.3d 251 (Ark. Ct. App.) (failure to request special findings waives right; appellate courts may presume necessary findings)
- Smith v. Quality Ford, Inc., 920 S.W.2d 497 (Ark.) (party's failure to request special findings amounts to waiver)
- Curry v. Pope Cty. Equalization Bd., 385 S.W.3d 130 (Ark.) (appellate courts presume trial court made necessary findings absent request/statute)
- Chastain v. Chastain, 388 S.W.3d 495 (Ark. Ct. App.) (appellate court may conclude evidence supported unmade findings on de novo review)
- Hamilton v. Barrett, 989 S.W.2d 520 (Ark.) (standards for reviewing implied findings)
- ConAgra, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 30 S.W.3d 725 (Ark.) (appellate duty to review entire evidentiary record)
- Houseman v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 491 S.W.3d 153 (Ark. Ct. App.) (termination requires proof parent is unfit and that termination is in child’s best interest)
- McDaniel v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 579 S.W.3d 184 (Ark. Ct. App.) (affirmance if any statutory ground is supported)
- Arnold v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 578 S.W.3d 329 (Ark. Ct. App.) (definition and application of subsequent-other-factors ground)
- Stehle v. Zimmerebner, 291 S.W.3d 573 (Ark.) (appellate review may examine whole record to determine clear error)