Troglin v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 89
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- DHS sought emergency custody of four-year-old C.T. in March 2015 after Kristan Troglin was arrested and C.T. was left with multiple caregivers; DHS had a prior history of protective-service findings involving the family dating to 2012.
- C.T. was adjudicated dependent-neglected in June 2015; Troglin was ordered to complete counseling, psychiatric evaluation, random drug screens, maintain stable housing/employment, and attend supervised visitation.
- Troglin had a seven-week hospitalization attributed to infections caused by drug use; she tested positive for multiple controlled substances in February 2016 and had subsequent drug-paraphernalia arrests and pending criminal charges.
- The permanency-planning order (Feb. 2016) found Troglin made minimal progress, lacked stability, and was not in a position to have C.T. returned; the goal was changed to adoption and DHS was authorized to file for termination.
- At the termination hearing DHS testimony and foster-parent testimony described C.T. as adoptable, with special needs (PTSD, sensory issues) and doing well in foster care; Troglin testified she had stable housing, employment, was clean six months, and requested more time or a trial placement.
- The circuit court terminated Troglin’s parental rights (July 2016), finding failure-to-remedy and subsequent-factors grounds proved and that termination was in the child’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was clear-and-convincing evidence Troglin failed to remedy conditions that caused removal ("failure to remedy"/12-month ground) | Troglin: insufficient evidence; removal was due to leaving C.T. with friends and hospitalization, not failure to remedy; hospitalization explains absence | DHS/court: Troglin’s hospitalization resulted from drug-related infections; she continued to test positive and failed to sustain compliance with the case plan | Held: Affirmed — court reasonably found Troglin did not remedy conditions despite DHS efforts; statutory ground proved by clear-and-convincing evidence |
| Whether termination was in C.T.’s best interest (potential harm/ability to meet special needs) | Troglin: evidence of bond, late but improving compliance, and ability to care for C.T.; court should have allowed more time or a trial placement | DHS/court: Troglin’s inconsistent compliance, ongoing drug use, criminal issues, and inability to meet C.T.’s special needs created potential harm; child was thriving and adoptable in foster placement | Held: Affirmed — court properly considered potential harm and other factors and concluded termination was in child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207 (2001) (standard for clear-and-convincing proof and appellate review of termination orders)
- Geatches v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 498 S.W.3d 344 (2016) (one statutory ground is sufficient to support termination)
- Tadlock v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 372 S.W.3d 403 (2009) (best-interest analysis considers potential harm in broad terms)