Williams v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
2019 Ark. App. 280
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- DHS removed L.C. (born Nov. 2013) from his mother’s custody in Oct. 2016 after the mother stabbed a half‑sibling; paternity (Williams) was established by DNA in 2014 and Williams was incarcerated.
- L.C. was adjudicated dependent‑neglected in Feb. 2017 and the court found aggravated circumstances; goals included adoption and relative placement.
- DHS filed to terminate Williams’s parental rights in July 2018; Williams was serving a 30‑year sentence for second‑degree murder (pleaded guilty) and expected to remain incarcerated past the child’s majority.
- At the termination hearing DHS caseworker testified DHS did not locate Williams or provide him a case plan, pleadings, or visitation; Williams testified he learned of the case from family, requested counsel when he learned of the termination petition, and sought placement with his mother or grandmother.
- The circuit court found statutory grounds (imprisonment and aggravated circumstances) and that termination was in the child’s best interest based on adoptability and potential harm from returning the child to an incarcerated parent.
- Williams appealed arguing (1) DHS’s failure to provide notice and case materials deprived him of due process, and (2) insufficient evidence of potential harm to support the best‑interest finding. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (DHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS’s failures (notice, case plan, pleadings) deprived Williams of due process, invalidating termination | DHS’s failure to provide documents, notice, and services prevented meaningful participation; denies due process | No preserved due‑process challenge below; trial record did not raise that specific argument | Not addressed on the merits — appellate court refused to consider because Williams failed to raise a specific due‑process claim in the circuit court (preservation rule) |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interest (potential harm to the child) | Insufficient evidence of potential harm; Williams never harmed child and could be released earlier; relative placement could allow continued parent role | Long, violent sentence and nature of offense, lack of suitable relative placement, child’s adoptability support potential harm and best interest of termination | Affirmed — court found potential harm and adoptability supported termination; incarceration duration and violent offense weighed heavily |
Key Cases Cited
- Dade v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 503 S.W.3d 96 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (standard of review and clear‑error principles in TPR appeals)
- Jackson v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 503 S.W.3d 122 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (weight to trial court’s personal observations in child welfare matters)
- Fox v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 448 S.W.3d 735 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (termination as an extreme remedy; heavy burden on party seeking TPR)
- T.J. v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 947 S.W.2d 761 (Ark. 1997) (two‑step TPR framework: statutory grounds and best interest)
- Smith v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 431 S.W.3d 364 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013) (same two‑step TPR framework)
- Myers v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 380 S.W.3d 906 (Ark. 2011) (best‑interest factors: adoptability and potential harm)
- Welch v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 378 S.W.3d 290 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (potential harm need not be actual harm; forward‑looking, broad inquiry)