Tuck v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
442 S.W.3d 20
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- DHS took a 72-hour hold on December 20, 2012 after Danielle was observed intoxicated with J.T. in the car; Dustin was incarcerated.
- February 2013: circuit court adjudicated the children dependent-neglected due to Danielle’s substance abuse and noted Dustin was not fit and proper at that time.
- April 2013 review continued custody with reunification as the goal; August 27, 2013 permanency order found partial parental compliance and changed the goal to termination and adoption.
- DHS filed a petition to terminate parental rights on October 3, 2013; the termination hearing occurred January 7, 2014.
- Danielle testified to jail time, a July 2013 DWI, recent sobriety efforts and employment, THC positive test, housing instability, and lack of consistent treatment; Dustin was incarcerated with uncertain release.
- The DHS caseworker testified the children were adoptable but cited concerns about Danielle’s stability and sobriety; the court found five grounds for termination were proved by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the 'failure to remedy' ground proved as to Danielle? | Tuck argues not proved for Danielle. | DHS contends ground proved. | Ground proved for Danielle. |
| Were 'subsequent factors' established for the parents? | Tuck claims no evidence for Dustin; Danielle lacks issues beyond alcoholism. | DHS argues factors shown for both parents. | Ground proved for both parents. |
| Did Dustin’s asserted upcoming release undermine the substantiality of his criminal sentence as a ground for termination? | Dustin argues release could occur soon, negating the ground. | Court properly found the ground based on risk and parole violations; release was not assured. | Ground supported; not clearly erroneous. |
| Was termination in the children’s best interests supported without considering relative placement evidence? | Placement with relatives could alter best interests. | Argument not preserved for review; relative placement evidence not properly raised below. | Not preserved; not addressed on the merits. |
| Was the termination hearing held more than ninety days after the petition? | Hearing occurred after ninety days; error. | Issue not preserved below. | Barred from review; not examined on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243 (1997) (terminology and standard for terminating parental rights; health and welfare of child)
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 40 S.W.3d 286 (2001) (clear and convincing evidence standard; review standard)
- Anderson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 387 S.W.3d 311 (2011) (credibility and deference to trial court findings)
- McElroy v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 432 S.W.3d 109 (2014) (preservation of issues on appeal; review limitations)