Ward v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2014 Ark. App. 491
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- DHS obtained a 72‑hour hold on T.W. and H.W. after a hotline report of a skull fracture on Aug 10, 2013; hold began Aug 12, 2013.
- DHS petitioned for emergency custody; court granted on Aug 19, 2013 and found probable cause for dependency-neglect on Sept 3, 2013.
- Adjudication hearing held Nov 5, 2013; medical evidence suggested injury severity inconsistent with caregivers’ reported incidents.
- Amber Ward testified the only incidents were being dropped by grandmother and hit by a ball; she could not explain the injury.
- Court orally found two grounds for dependency-neglect: abuse by unknown offender (injury at variance with history) and inadequate supervision; written order entered Jan 21, 2014.
- Appellants contend the written order lacks explicit variance-injury language and challenge the unknown-offender abuse theory; the court affirms de novo review standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether abuse finding rests on injury at variance with history | Ward argues variance language not explicit in order | DHS says order and oral findings show abuse by variance | Affirmed; abuse supported by evidence and oral findings. |
| Whether unknown offender supports abuse under statute | Unknown offender cannot be identified as abuse | Injury occurred in home; offender could be entrusted with care | Affirmed; injury can constitute abuse under statute. |
| Whether fault or intent is required for abuse finding | Abuse requires fault/intent | No authority requiring fault; not dispositive | Affirmed; court did not require fault/intent to sustain abuse. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schultz v. Butterball, 402 S.W.3d 61 (Ark. 2012) (lack of written ruling on issue not fatal to preservation)
- Porter v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 246 (Ark. App. 2010) (oral pronouncements can reveal intent behind written orders)
- Clary v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2014 Ark. App. 338 (Ark. App. 2014) (dependency-neglect standards; de novo review applies)
- Perryman v. Hackler, 323 Ark. 500, 916 S.W.2d 105 (Ark. 1996) (appellate review of arguments; need for convincing authority)