Wheatley v. Arkansas Department of Human Services & Minor Children
2016 Ark. App. 438
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- DHS removed two children (K.W., infant; J.W., older) after injuries: K.W. with broken clavicle, bruising, testicular bleeding, and an older healing fracture; J.W. had prior bruising for which Randi previously admitted responsibility.
- Children adjudicated dependent-neglected on October 7, 2014; Randi was ordered into counseling, parenting and anger-management classes, psychological evaluation, and to follow court and case-plan requirements.
- A fifteenth-month permanency-planning order (Aug. 4, 2015) expressed safety concerns and gave Randi three months to show the children could be returned to her care; grandparents (Rhonda and Andy Wheatley) had long cared for the boys.
- A subsequent child-maltreatment investigation into an allegation against the step-grandmother was unsubstantiated (Sept. 16, 2015).
- On December 14, 2015, the trial court placed permanent custody with the grandparents, left visitation to their sole discretion, and closed the case; Randi appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether closure/permanent custody order was based on a factual mistake (trial court mistakenly believed Randi was adjudicated the perpetrator of K.W.’s abuse) | Randi: Court relied on a mistaken belief that she had been found to have abused K.W., which justifies reversal. | DHS/Grandparents: Court considered safety and Randi’s credibility, not a mistaken legal finding that she was adjudicated the perpetrator. | Court affirmed: no clear error; court relied on finding children unsafe in Randi’s care whether or not she was the actual perpetrator. |
| Whether Randi could be required to remedy an abuse she was never found to have committed | Randi: It’s improper to require remediation for an offense not adjudicated to her. | DHS: Even without a specific perpetrator determination, custodial parent must protect children; safety concerns justify permanency decision. | Court affirmed: requirement to show children would be safe is proper despite lack of explicit finding that Randi was the abuser. |
| Whether trial court erred by denying regular visitation (leaving visitation to grandparents’ sole discretion) | Randi: Denial of regular visitation was erroneous. | DHS/Ad Litem: Argument premature; court did not bar visitation but left it to custodians; court can be petitioned if visitation is unreasonably denied. | Court affirmed: not reversible; no evidence grandparents are denying visits and the issue is remediable by modification if necessary. |
| Standard of review and deference in juvenile custody cases | N/A (procedural) | N/A | Court reiterated de novo review with deference to trial court’s credibility findings; not clearly erroneous here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Metcalf v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 466 S.W.3d 426 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (standards of review in juvenile proceedings; de novo with deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Sawada v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 60 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (courts refuse to consider arguments unsupported by convincing argument or legal authority)