Wittig v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
423 S.W.3d 143
Ark. Ct. App.2012Background
- DHS took a 72-hour hold on four children: T.M., S.M., A.M., and M.D.; Tara Wittig is their mother, Randy Millsap is father of T.M., S.M., A.M., and Josh Davis is father of M.D.
- At removal, allegations included inadequate supervision, inadequate food, and drug use in Tara's home; Tara tested positive for methamphetamine and THC, while Josh tested positive for THC.
- Emergency custody was granted on March 9, 2010; probable-cause for dependency-neglect found on March 17, 2010; April 28, 2010 adjudicated dependent-neglected due to parental unfitness, inadequate supervision, and failed drug screens by Tara and Josh.
- October 19, 2010 review kept children in DHS custody; Tara had two March 2010 positive drug screens followed by eight negatives and completed an inpatient program and parenting classes; Josh had stable housing and employment but incarceration for Randy affected proceedings; Randy was incarcerated for meth manufacturing and unrelated sentence, with limited contact with DHS.
- August 16, 2011 permanency-planning hearing produced no written order; testimony indicated Tara lacked stable housing and sporadic contact; Randy remained incarcerated; Josh had stable housing and employment but ongoing concerns about relationship with Tara; the circuit court changed the goal to termination and adoption.
- DHS filed a petition for termination on October 7, 2011 outlining grounds including 12-month removal with conditions unrepaired, willful failure to provide support or maintain contact, post-petition factors showing risk upon return, and Randy’s substantial criminal sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved a statutory ground for termination for Tara | Wittig failed to remedy factors; housing and income unstable; visitation sporadic | Tara argues housing and income were adequate and contact was meaningful | Grounds proven and termination affirmed |
| Whether termination of Tara's rights was in the children's best interest | Termination necessary for safety and adoption prospects | Not disputed; argues potential for reunification | Best-interest termination not clearly erroneous |
| Whether DHS proved a statutory ground for termination for Randy | Randy failed to maintain meaningful contact or provide support; incarceration hindered contact | Could not maintain contact due to incarceration; sought to maintain relationship | Ground proven; termination affirmed |
| Whether termination of Josh's rights was in M.D.'s best interest | M.D. bonded to foster parents; removal would harm; Josh’s limited visitation and poor support record | Argues best interests were not clearly established to sever parental rights | Best-interest finding not clearly erroneous; termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinkins v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207 (2001) (clear-and-convincing standard; de novo review in termination cases)
- Camarillo-Cox v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 360 Ark. 340 (2005) (termination grounds require clear and convincing proof; best interests relevant)
- M.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 58 Ark.App. 302 (1997) (clear and convincing burden in termination proceedings)
- Smith v. Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 100 Ark.App. 74 (2007) (best-interest considerations and adoptability noted)
- Malone v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 71 Ark.App. 441 (2000) (reunification efforts and contact during incarceration analyzed)
- Gossett v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 240 (2010) (best-interest and potential harm factors in adoption context)
- J.T. v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243 (1997) (credibility and resolution of testimony at termination hearings)
- Anderson v. Douglas, 310 Ark. 633 (1992) (general framework for termination evidence and standard of review)