Ware v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2016 Ark. App. 480
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- DHS obtained emergency custody of appellant Quinshonda Ware’s four children in Sept. 2014 after she left them with her mother and could not be located; prior protective-services findings for appellant’s illegal drug use existed.
- Children were adjudicated dependent-neglected in Dec. 2014; DHS repeatedly offered services aimed at reunification (drug treatment, counseling, parenting classes).
- Throughout the case appellant repeatedly tested positive for multiple illegal substances, refused recommended outpatient treatment, missed intake appointments, and failed to complete parenting and counseling programs.
- The children were in foster care for approximately seventeen months; no relative placements had been made during permanency hearings and relatives were not present at hearings.
- At termination hearings appellant admitted ongoing drug use, unstable housing, limited transportation, and failure to complete required services; DHS caseworker and attorney ad litem recommended termination as being in the children’s best interest.
- The circuit court terminated appellant’s parental rights (Apr. 1, 2016), finding two statutory grounds proven by clear and convincing evidence: failure to remedy removal conditions after 12+ months and aggravated circumstances (little likelihood services would achieve reunification). The court also found termination was in the children’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ware) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds for termination were proved | Insufficient evidence to support either ground | Continued drug use, refusal/failure to complete treatment and services showed little likelihood services would reunify | Court affirmed: aggravated-circumstances ground supported (no clear error) |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interest | Insufficient evidence of adoptability and potential harm if returned | Children adoptable; returning posed potential harm due to drug use and unstable housing | Court affirmed: best-interest finding not clearly erroneous |
| Whether DHS must allow additional time for relative placement under §9-28-105 | DHS was considering paternal grandmother; statute favors relatives so more time should be allowed | Issue not raised below; argument unpreserved | Court declined to consider on appeal (unpreserved) |
| Whether a single statutory ground suffices to support termination | N/A (procedural) | At least one statutory ground plus best-interest showing required | Court applied established law: one ground sufficient; upheld termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (2001) (standard of review and requirements for termination)
- Pine v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 379 S.W.3d 703 (Ark. App. 2010) (factors for best-interest determination: adoptability and potential harm)
- Schaible v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 444 S.W.3d 366 (Ark. App. 2014) (potential harm need not be specifically proved; credibility for factfinder)
- Miller v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 492 S.W.3d 113 (Ark. App. 2016) (adoptability need only be considered, not proved by clear and convincing evidence)
- Sarut v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 455 S.W.3d 341 (Ark. App. 2015) (holding that one statutory ground is sufficient to affirm termination)