Vega v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 106
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- DHS became involved March 2015 after a true finding of medical neglect and allegations of sexual abuse by the children's father, Markus Trantham; a protection plan prohibited contact with Markus.
- Five of Christy Vega’s children were removed from the home (three older children were with their father and one child was born later and remained with Christy). Allegations included continued contact with Markus, domestic violence, housing instability, and parental unfitness.
- The five children were adjudicated dependent-neglected August 5, 2015; a case plan and visitation were implemented but later curtailed after incidents during visits and concerns about children’s behavior and hygiene.
- The permanency plan was changed to adoption on May 13, 2016 after the court found parents had not made significant progress or complied with case plans and orders.
- DHS petitioned to terminate parental rights June 13, 2016; termination hearing was August 17, 2016 and the trial court terminated Christy’s parental rights August 31, 2016. Vega appealed only the best-interest finding, not the statutory grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Vega) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest | Vega argued the trial court erred because DHS had not removed the infant A.T., undermining claims of potential harm; also challenged adoptability of P.T. | DHS argued substantial evidence supported both potential harm from return and likelihood of adoption for the children | Court affirmed: best-interest finding supported by clear and convincing evidence |
| Potential-harm to children if returned | Vega: removal of infant shows no ongoing risk; court’s broad potential-harm finding was overbroad | DHS: factual record (sexual abuse allegations, domestic violence, familial chaos, reluctance to protect children) supported potential harm | Court: trial court’s potential-harm finding not clearly erroneous; broad analysis permissible |
| Adoptability of child P.T. | Vega: evidence showed P.T.’s needs would make adoptability unlikely | DHS: caseworker and therapist testimony, CASA report, and progress in therapy supported adoptability | Court: adoptability need not be proved by clear and convincing evidence; caseworker testimony sufficed; adoptability finding affirmed |
| Standard of review and sufficiency of evidence | Vega: challenged sufficiency of best-interest evidence | DHS: pointed to de novo review but deferential standard on factual findings; credibility for factfinder | Court: applied de novo review but upheld trial court because record did not leave court with definite and firm conviction a mistake was made |
Key Cases Cited
(No official-reporter-citation cases included in the opinion met the requirement for listing here.)