Wallace v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 376
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- DHS took emergency custody of infant D.W. (2 months old) after an incident of domestic violence and discovery of drug use and paraphernalia in the home; mother Tara Wallace tested positive for multiple controlled substances.
- D.W. was adjudicated dependent-neglected and court found aggravated circumstances; reunification services were deemed unlikely to succeed in a reasonable time.
- DHS filed to terminate Wallace’s parental rights; a termination hearing occurred after an amended petition alleging statutory grounds including aggravated circumstances.
- Wallace has a diagnosed dual-diagnosis (bipolar disorder and substance abuse plus OCD and psychosis), multiple failed treatment attempts, recent positive drug tests, and inconsistent compliance with the case plan (e.g., no sponsor, attempted to defeat drug screens).
- Expert testimony described chronic mental illness complicated by substance abuse; court found Wallace not credible, made little progress, and unlikely to achieve stability in a reasonable time.
- Circuit court terminated parental rights as being in the child’s best interest; Wallace appealed only the best-interest determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in child’s best interest | Wallace: needs more time to stabilize on medication and complete dual-diagnosis treatment; mental-health treatment could enable parenting | DHS: child needs permanency; Wallace has chronic instability, continued drug use, and failed services, so more time unlikely to help | Affirmed — court found termination in child’s best interest given lack of progress and potential harm from returning child |
| Whether past behavior may be used to predict potential future harm | Wallace: past behavior and treatment gaps don’t prove future inability if given more time/appropriate services | DHS: past relapses, recent positive tests, and failure to comply with plan justify predicting future harm and denying more time | Held: past behavior may be considered as predictor of potential harm; court relied on it |
| Adequacy of services provided for mental-health/dual-diagnosis needs | Wallace: court erred by not providing or allowing sufficient dual-diagnosis treatment and time to achieve therapeutic medication levels | DHS: provided reasonable efforts; additional/unbounded delay would harm child’s need for permanency | Held: Services were sufficient; lack of parental progress defeated request for more time |
| Whether additional time would likely result in reunification | Wallace: additional time would permit stabilization and reunification | DHS: Wallace’s repeated failures and lack of motivation make additional time futile and contrary to child’s welfare | Held: Additional time would not likely make a difference; termination appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Lively v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 456 S.W.3d 383 (Ark. Ct. App.) (standard of review and DHS burden in termination cases)
- Spencer v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 426 S.W.3d 494 (Ark. Ct. App.) (best-interest determination need not be established factor-by-factor by clear and convincing evidence)
- Chaffin v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 471 S.W.3d 251 (Ark. Ct. App.) (potential harm may be forward-looking and need not be actual harm)
- Dowdy v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 314 S.W.3d 722 (Ark. Ct. App.) (past behavior can predict potential future harm)
- Christian-Holderfield v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 916 (Ark. Ct. App.) (child’s need for permanency can override parent’s request for more time)