Welch v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2010 Ark. App. 798
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Welch, a 16-year-old, gave birth to B.W. in 2006; DHS took B.W. into emergency custody on Feb 8, 2008 after meth exposure and Welch’s admissions of meth use for six months.
- Custodians at removal were Welch’s mother and stepfather due to Welch's probation for theft.
- Emergency custody order issued Feb 11, 2008, with no visitation for Welch or B.W.’s grandmother/step grandfather; DHS ordered medical assessments and vaccinations for B.W.
- Adjudication on Apr 3, 2008 found B.W. dependent-neglected due to neglect and parental unfitness; reunification was the goal with Welch subjected to strict conditions (drug treatment, counseling, random tests, parenting classes, probation compliance, and child-support payments).
- August 6, 2008 review found Welch unstable and noncompliant (no visitation, no psychological evaluation, not attending counseling, multiple arrests, nonpayment of child support); additional court obligations were imposed (drug court, housing, GED, visitation).
- December 18, 2009 permanency planning changed goal to adoption after Welch showed limited progress, admitted drug use, and was jailed for contempt; DHS petition to terminate parental rights filed Dec 31, 2009; termination granted Apr 7, 2010; appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is termination in B.W.’s best interest? | DHS argues termination is in B.W.’s best interest given adoptability and ongoing risks. | Welch argues for more time/reunification potential. | Yes; termination is in B.W.’s best interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.T. v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 947 S.W.2d 761 (1997) (two-step best-interests framework; grounds plus best interest must be considered)
- McFarland v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 210 S.W.3d 143 (2005) (adoptability and best-interests analysis in termination)
- Carroll v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 148 S.W.3d 780 (2004) (adoptability and potential-harm considerations in best-interest review)
- La-tham v. Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services, 256 S.W.3d 543 (2007) (stable housing as a basic need affecting child’s welfare)
- Dowdy v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 314 S.W.3d 722 (2009) (forward-looking, potential-harm evidence in best-interest analysis)
- Lee v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 285 S.W.3d 277 (2008) (potential harm not required to be actual; forward-looking)