Vail v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2016 Ark. App. 150
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- DHS removed S.S. (born Apr. 7, 2013) from mother Samanthia See after reports of inadequate supervision/feeding, severe diaper rash, and mother's refusal to drug‑test; prior DHS involvement began June 2013 for similar concerns.
- DHS developed reunification case plans requiring parenting classes, drug/alcohol and psychological assessments, random drug screens, stable housing/income, and visitation; both parents had mixed compliance.
- Samanthia completed many services but had positive drug tests (THC, opiates), no stable employment or disability benefits, credibility concerns, and visitation issues (needed redirection to focus on child).
- Raymond Vail completed some requirements and maintained employment but had positive drug screens (THC, opiates with prescription), frequent moves, difficulty being contacted, inconsistent visitation punctuality, and a denied home‑study packet.
- DHS filed to terminate both parents’ rights (alleging twelve months out of custody, subsequent factors making placement contrary to the child’s welfare, and aggravated circumstances) and sought authority to consent to adoption; the trial court terminated both parents’ rights and the parents appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in S.S.’s best interest (Samanthia) | Samanthia: insufficient evidence of potential harm; had stable, clean housing, completed plan, faithful visitation — preservation favored over severance | State/DHS: history of neglect, recurrence of supervisory/feeding failures, ongoing instability, and services did not render her able to care for child | Court: Affirmed — best‑interest finding not clearly erroneous (adoptability + potential harm shown) |
| Whether DHS proved a statutory ground for termination (Raymond) | Raymond: was largely compliant; visitation and drug issues were minimal; no clear statutory ground proved | DHS: subsequent factors arose (drug positives, housing/financial instability, inaccessibility, denied home study) showing incapacity/indifference despite services | Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supports "subsequent factors" ground under § 9‑27‑341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(A) |
| Whether termination was in S.S.’s best interest (Raymond) | Raymond: insufficient evidence of potential harm; relationships and poverty alone do not establish harm; visitation and parenting were appropriate | DHS: forward‑looking potential harm from ongoing instability, drug use, financial insecurity, inability to provide safe home or plan for child | Court: Affirmed — likelihood of adoption and potential harm (broad analysis) support termination |
| Whether trial court applied correct standard of proof | Parents: court comments suggested an improper burden; concerns about accessibility of dependency process | State: court applied clear and convincing standard and relied on credible caseworker testimony and records | Court: No reversible error — findings reviewed de novo and supported by clear and convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 430 S.W.3d 851 (Ark. App. 2013) (standard for de novo review of TPR cases)
- Anderson v. Douglas, 839 S.W.2d 196 (Ark. 1992) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- J.T. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 947 S.W.2d 761 (Ark. 1997) (appellate standard for reviewing factual findings in TPR cases)
- Conn v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 85 S.W.3d 558 (Ark. App. 2002) (reversal where best‑interest finding unsupported at termination hearing)
- Strickland v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 287 S.W.3d 633 (Ark. App. 2008) (moves and low income insufficient alone to support TPR absent unsafe/inadequate housing or other clear evidence)
- Bearden v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 42 S.W.3d 397 (Ark. 2001) (potential‑harm analysis should be broad and need not show actual harm)
- Wright v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 115 S.W.3d 332 (Ark. App. 2003) (completion of case plan is not dispositive; must have achieved intended result)
- Allen v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 384 S.W.3d 7 (Ark. App. 2011) (continued illegal drug use can demonstrate potential harm)