Wilson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2015 Ark. App. 666
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- Children (J.M., D.M., and S.A.) were removed after domestic-violence incidents between Crystal Wilson and Alan Allred; DHS obtained emergency custody and later adjudicated the children dependent-neglected.
- Case plan required parents to address domestic violence, complete counseling, drug screens, parenting classes, and provide records; reunification was pursued but ultimately unsuccessful.
- Trial placement with Crystal occurred in Oct. 2013 but children were reremoved in Dec. 2013 after further domestic incidents; J.M. and D.M. subsequently were placed with their father, Billy, who later received permanent custody.
- DHS filed a petition to terminate parental rights in Sept. 2014, alleging children had been out of parental custody for over 12 months and the conditions causing removal (domestic violence) had not been remedied despite DHS efforts.
- At the termination hearing, the circuit court found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds (failure to remedy) were met and that termination was in the children’s best interest because of ongoing, violent domestic abuse occurring in front of the children; the court terminated Crystal’s rights to all three children and Alan’s rights to S.A.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in children’s best interest (J.M. & D.M.) | Crystal: unnecessary because J.M. & D.M. already achieved permanency with father Billy; termination not needed to secure permanency | DHS/Court: ongoing domestic violence posed potential harm; permanency with father did not preclude termination of mother’s rights where harm would result | Court: affirmed — termination in children’s best interest due to potential harm from repeated domestic violence |
| Whether DHS proved statutory ground (failure to remedy conditions causing removal) | Parents: DHS did not provide meaningful domestic-violence services; parents sought counseling independently and improved before hearing | DHS/Court: DHS made meaningful efforts; parents delayed addressing domestic violence until shortly before termination hearing and did not remedy condition within reasonable time | Court: affirmed — DHS proved failure-to-remedy by clear and convincing evidence |
| Admissibility of Billy’s hearsay testimony (child’s statement relayed) | Alan: testimony was hearsay and improperly admitted | DHS/Court: testimony allowed; even if erroneous, admission was harmless and not outcome-determinative | Court: affirmed — no reversible error; evidence was cumulative and not relied upon for best-interest finding |
| Right to appointed counsel — timeliness of appointment for Alan | Alan: counsel not appointed until termination hearing, prejudicing defense | DHS/Court: Alan had been represented earlier by retained counsel and did not move to dismiss; issue not raised below | Court: affirmed — argument waived for failure to raise in circuit court |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, 344 Ark. 207 (court reviews termination orders de novo)
- J.T. v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, 329 Ark. 243 (appellate standard that findings must be proved by clear and convincing evidence)
- Camarillo-Cox v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, 360 Ark. 340 (compliance with case plan is not dispositive; stability and safety are controlling)
- Osborne v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, 98 Ark. App. 129 (trial court’s credibility determinations afforded deference)
- Johnson v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, 78 Ark. App. 112 (weight given to trial judge’s personal observations in child-welfare matters)