Tucker v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2011 Ark. App. 430
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Larry and Jessica Tucker’s three minor children were removed due to neglect and inadequate supervision after the children begged for food while their father was hospitalized; DHS obtained a 72-hour hold and the court ordered adjudication of dependence-neglect and a case plan.
- The court found the parents’ credibility and hygiene problematic and placed J.T.2 with Jessica at times, but due to other family disruptions and Jessica’s erratic behavior, custody remained with DHS.
- Both parents were found to have limited or partial compliance with the case plan over multiple hearings, with Jessica’s progress described as minimal and Larry’s as partial.
- Visitation was limited/supervised; Larry’s visits were restricted if he disparaged Jessica in front of the children, and Jessica was repeatedly unable to attend or comply with court orders.
- By June 2010, the court determined DHS provided reasonable services but the parents failed to remedy the removal conditions; the plan shifted to termination as adoption was identified as the permanency goal.
- In September 2010, the court found termination of parental rights to be in the best interests of all three children, and awarded adoption; the appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was supported by clear and convincing evidence | Pittman argues Tucker complied with the case plan. | State argues ongoing inability to safely parent despite plan. | Termination supported by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether progress toward the case plan precludes termination | Partial progress should prevent termination. | Progress does not bar termination if conditions persist. | Progress is not a bar to termination. |
| Whether adoptability affected the decision | Adoptability is essential to termination. | Adoptability is a factor, not determinative. | Adoptability weighed but not controlling; termination affirmed. |
| Whether best interests required termination given instability | Stability exists if parents comply. | Chronic instability makes reunification unsafe. | Best interests favored termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Camarillo-Cox v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 360 Ark. 340, 201 S.W.3d 391 (2005) (clear-and-convincing standard; remedying conditions required for reunification)
- Trout v. Department of Human Services, 359 Ark. 283, 197 S.W.3d 486 (2004) (termination is an extreme remedy, requires best interests)
- Wright v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 83 Ark.App. 1, 115 S.W.3d 332 (2003) (completion of case plan not determinative; focus on resulting parental capability)
- Renfro v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2011 Ark.App. 419, 385 S.W.3d 285 (2011) (adoptability as a factor in best interests)