White v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 529
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- DHS removed AH from her mother Hull shortly after birth due to maternal drug use and Hull's homelessness; AH and Hull tested positive for multiple drugs.
- White appeared at the probable-cause hearing; he was ordered to visitation, drug screens, housing and employment stabilization, and protection of the child, but failed to appear for the February 26, 2016 adjudication and did not submit to a drug screen or visit AH.
- AH was found dependent-neglected and subjected to aggravated circumstances; she was placed with her maternal grandmother Kathy Green in a provisional foster home.
- On April 22, 2016, the court found reunification services would no longer be provided and authorized a plan for termination and adoption; White had not availed himself of services or visits.
- After a termination hearing in June 2016, Hull’s rights were terminated but White’s were not; the court noted White’s incarceration and lack of counsel, but later sought to continue permanency planning and adopted a plan for adoption.
- White remained incarcerated for most of the case or released only briefly; he was not in a position to provide stable housing or sobriety, while Green desired adoption and had AH with whom White had no visitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of White's parental rights is in AH's best interest | White contends continued placement with Green suffices for permanency; argues termination not necessary. | DHS argues AH’s permanency and safety require termination given White's incarceration and failure to comply with the case plan. | Yes; termination is in AH's best interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pine v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 379 S.W.3d 703 (2010 Ark. App. 781) (permancy and health/safety considerations govern best-interest analysis)
- McElwee v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 489 S.W.3d 704 (2016 Ark. App. 214) (clear and convincing standard in best-interest determinations)
- Cranford v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 851 (2011 Ark. App. 211) (distinguishes welfare best-interest factors when relatives are caregivers)
- Brumley v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 497 S.W.3d 206 (2015 Ark. 356) (parental rights termination upheld where extensive incarceration and lack of stability persist)
- Scrivner v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 497 S.W.3d 206 (2016 Ark. App. 316) (affirming best-interest termination where father hospitalizes stability and compliance failures)
- Bunch v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 523 S.W.3d 913 (2017 Ark. App. 374) (reversal in some cases where parental compliance and stability favor continued parental rights)
- Cranford v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 851 (2011 Ark. App. 211) (see above (duplicate entry for clarity))