Villasaldo v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2014 Ark. App. 465
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- DHS petitioned for emergency custody and dependency-neglect after J.G. sustained a skull fracture and five broken ribs; J.G. was adjudicated dependent-neglected in 2011 for abuse and lack of protection.
- DHS was ordered to provide Villasaldo with services, including active-parenting and parenting-without-violence classes, psychological evaluations, and counseling.
- In December 2012, DHS petitioned to terminate Villasaldo’s parental rights, alleging continued dependency-neglect, failure to remedy, and that termination was in J.G.’s best health, safety, and welfare, with aggravated circumstances.
- At a 2013 termination hearing, Dr. Farst testified J.G.’s injuries were from abuse by one or two incidents and that the parents provided no credible history or explanation.
- Dr. Powell’s evaluations showed Villasaldo had a significant deficit in empathy toward her child and that her lack of empathy posed a risk if J.G. were returned to her custody.
- DHS worker Dancer testified Villasaldo did not express outrage or identify the perpetrator, and remained unaware of who caused the injuries, making return unsafe; the trial court found grounds for termination and best interests supported termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports termination under 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vi)(a) | Villasaldo | DHS | Not alleged; cannot rely on it, but other grounds support termination |
| Whether termination was proper under other pleaded grounds | Villasaldo challenged only ground vi(a) | DHS alleged additional grounds and evidence supports termination | Yes; termination sustained on properly pleaded grounds |
| Whether termination was in J.G.’s best interest | Villasaldo completed case plan and showed improvement | DHS argued ongoing risk due to lack of empathy and unresolved root cause | Yes; court found termination in best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Gwinup v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2014 Ark. App. 337 (Ark. App. 2014) (termination requires clear and convincing evidence and best interests analysis)
- Wright v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 115 S.W.3d 332 (Ark. App. 2003) (de novo review of termination findings; credibility afforded to trial court)
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 947 S.W.2d 761 (Ark. 1997) (clear and convincing standard; appellate deference to factual findings)
- Fredrick v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 377 S.W.3d 306 (Ark. App. 2010) (grounds for termination; substantial evidence standard)
- Weatherspoon v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 426 S.W.3d 520 (Ark. App. 2013) (case plan completion not required for termination; root causes matter)
- Lee v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 285 S.W.3d 277 (Ark. App. 2008) (relevance of substantial compliance with case plan; risk assessment)
- Ashcroft v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 374 S.W.3d 743 (Ark. App. 2010) (appeal of adjudication rulings and review limitations)
- Draper v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 389 S.W.3d 58 (Ark. App. 2012) (unpled grounds not to be considered on appeal)
- Thomsen v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 370 S.W.3d 842 (Ark. App. 2009) (appellate review limits; unchallenged grounds remain intact)