Weatherspoon v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2013 Ark. App. 104
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- DHS became involved after T.N.2 reported her brother T.N.1 sexually abused her; DHS placed T.N.2 in 72-hour hold on Feb 28, 2011 and the circuit court granted emergency custody on Mar 2, 2011.
- T.N.2 was adjudicated dependent-neglected due to appellant’s unfitness, neglect, and instability; the court took judicial notice of two prior dependency-neglect cases involving appellant’s other children.
- Appellant participated in a DHS case plan and completed some components (housing, employment, parenting classes, psychological evaluation) but had no positive drug screens and visitation was restricted.
- Five months after a review, T.N.1 was removed; a second dependency-neglect case alleged impediment of reunification, and T.N.1 was again adjudicated dependent-neglected based on appellant’s conduct and DHS history.
- On the same day as T.N.1’s adjudication, the court changed the goal in T.N.2’s case from reunification to termination, and a termination hearing followed three months later.
- Multiple witnesses (therapists, DHS caseworker, Dr. Worley, and the father) testified that appellant had not remedied anger-management and risk factors, leading the court to terminate parental rights on July 19, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the termination in the children’s best interests supported by clear and convincing evidence? | Weatherspoon argues best interests not proven. | State argues overall evidence shows adoption is likely and harm from return is substantial. | Yes; best-interest finding supported by the record. |
| Did the court properly consider adoptability and potential harm in the best-interest analysis? | Weatherspoon contends adoptability and harm were not properly weighed. | State relies on adoptability evidence and potential harm to conclude termination is proper. | Adoptability established and potential-harm supported; no reversal. |
| Was completion of parts of the case plan a bar to termination? | Weatherspoon claims progress/reform prevents termination. | State argues completion alone does not render parent capable; roots must be remedied. | No; completion does not foreclose termination where risks persist. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re KM.C., 62 Ark.App. 95 (1998) (harm analysis viewed broadly for best-interest showings)
- Latham v. Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 99 Ark.App. 25 (2007) (best interests require likelihood of adoption and harm risk)
- Bearden v. Ark Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 317 (2001) (clear and convincing evidence standard and balancing factors)
- Lee v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 102 Ark.App. 337 (2008) (forward-looking, broad harm assessment in termination cases)
- McFarland v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 91 Ark.App. 323 (2005) (overall evidence controls best-interest determination)
- Dominguez v. Ark Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 404 (2009) (individualized best-interest determinations per child)
- Wright v. Ark Dep’t of Human Servs., 83 Ark.App. 1 (2003) (case-plan completion not determinative)
- Camarillo-Cox v. Ark Dep’t of Human Servs., 360 Ark. 340 (2005) (case-plan compliance vs. underlying deficiencies)
- Benedict v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 96 Ark.App. 395 (2006) (termination is an extreme remedy requiring clear evidence)
- Ullom v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 67 Ark. App. 77 (1999) (reviewing for clear error, not substitute fact-finder)