Watson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 484
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- DHS removed J.W. (b. 2006) after criminal arrests of the mother and her boyfriend in January 2014; Thomas Watson was identified as J.W.’s father but had an extensive criminal history and periods of incarceration during the case.
- The juveniles were adjudicated dependent-neglected; Watson was repeatedly incarcerated or unavailable, was ordered to comply with case-plan conditions, and was repeatedly prohibited from contact with J.W. until approved by DHS.
- After a trial home placement, custody was returned to the mother but children were removed again in January 2015; permanency goal later changed to adoption in May 2016.
- DHS filed a petition to terminate parental rights as to Watson in May 2016, alleging multiple statutory grounds (failure to remedy conditions, abandonment, subsequent factors affecting welfare, lengthy incarceration, aggravated circumstances).
- At the termination hearing DHS caseworker testified Watson had little or no contact with DHS while not incarcerated, had not complied with the case plan, and J.W. and her half‑siblings were adoptable and placed together with paternal grandparents who wished to adopt.
- The circuit court terminated Watson’s parental rights on all five alleged statutory grounds and found termination was in J.W.’s best interest due to adoptability and likelihood of potential physical/psychological harm if returned to Watson given his criminal history, long incarcerations, lack of stability, and lack of meaningful contact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interest (potential-harm finding) | DHS: clear and convincing evidence that returning J.W. to Watson would pose potential physical/psychological harm and that child is adoptable | Watson: court erred; DHS failed to prove potential harm and termination is not in J.W.’s best interest | Court affirmed: potential-harm may be inferred from past behavior and lack of parental progress; termination is in best interest (child adoptable; risk if returned) |
| Sufficiency of statutory grounds for termination | DHS: proved one or more statutory grounds (listed in petition) by clear and convincing evidence | Watson: did not contest the statutory grounds on appeal | Court affirmed termination on all five statutory bases alleged (Watson did not challenge these on appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cranford v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 851 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011) (contrasts cases where parental progress and grandparental support favor continued contact)
- Brumley v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. 356 (Ark. 2015) (parental incarceration and lack of relationship support termination and need for permanency)
- Wallace v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2017 Ark. App. 376 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (standard for reviewing potential-harm and best-interest findings in termination cases)