Whittiker v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2015 Ark. App. 467
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- DHS removed daughters C.W. (8) and N.W. (6) after reports they were unsupervised while mother Teresa Whittiker was using methamphetamine and the home was filthy, unsafe, and the children were out of school.
- Whittiker admitted methamphetamine use; a hair test showed N.W. positive for methamphetamine. Psychological evaluation diagnosed substance abuse, depression, and dependent-personality disorder and recommended outpatient or residential treatment plus counseling, stable housing, and income.
- Circuit court adjudicated the children dependent-neglected and found aggravated circumstances (environmental, educational, dental neglect; abuse from drug exposure). Reunification services and a case plan were ordered.
- Whittiker initially complied intermittently (negative drug tests, counseling, outpatient treatment) but relapsed in May–June 2014, failed multiple drug tests, entered and was discharged from residential treatment for rule violations, and showed a pattern of progress under supervision followed by regression after scrutiny ended.
- Permanency plan was changed to termination and adoption; DHS filed to terminate parental rights alleging aggravated circumstances, failure to remedy conditions, and potential harm from continued contact and instability.
- The trial court found statutory grounds and that termination was in the children’s best interest due to potential harm and adoptability; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Whittiker's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest because there was insufficient evidence of potential harm if returned to mother | Whittiker: no evidence that the children would face potential harm; recent negative tests and compliance showed improved stability; relapse was isolated | DHS: mother’s history of relapse, failure to complete recommended inpatient treatment, and repeated environmental/educational/dental neglect demonstrate likely future harm and inability to sustain progress | Court: Affirmed — potential-harm inquiry may rely on past behavior as predictor; totality of history and relapse supported finding of potential harm and best interest of termination |
Key Cases Cited
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (Ark. 1997) (parental rights not absolute; termination must protect child’s welfare)
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (Ark. 2001) (clear-and-convincing standard and appellate review deference explained)
- Lee v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 102 Ark. App. 337, 285 S.W.3d 277 (Ark. Ct. App. 2008) (potential-harm inquiry can be broad; actual harm need not be proved)
- Carroll v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 85 Ark. App. 255, 148 S.W.3d 780 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004) (parental drug use relevant to potential harm and indifference to remedying removal conditions)
- Kight v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 87 Ark. App. 230, 189 S.W.3d 498 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004) (one-time relapse insufficient where it was isolated and no other neglect issues existed)