Woodward v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2017 Ark. App. 91
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- DHS removed B.W., born March 30, 2007, after reports of medical neglect (dental issues), inappropriate housing (living in a crowded trailer, sleeping on the floor), and school absences; mother’s whereabouts unknown and father Billy Woodward was incarcerated.
- B.W. was adjudicated dependent-neglected on June 18, 2015. A permanency-plan review in September 2015 changed the plan to adoption and authorized a termination petition due to Woodward’s noncompliance with the case plan.
- DHS filed a termination petition (Nov. 23, 2015) alleging, inter alia, that Woodward had been sentenced in a criminal proceeding for a period constituting a substantial portion of the child’s life (Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(viii)).
- Woodward was sentenced July 2, 2015 to ten years’ imprisonment; at the time of the termination order B.W. was nine, so the sentence covered the remainder of his juvenile life.
- The trial court terminated Woodward’s parental rights (order filed Aug. 9, 2016; amended Sept. 12, 2016 to add ICWA finding). The court found statutory grounds (incarceration sentence) satisfied and that termination was in B.W.’s best interest (child adoptable; potential harm if returned to incarcerated parent).
- Woodward appealed but counsel filed a no-merit brief under Linker-Flores; Woodward filed no pro se points. The Court of Appeals affirmed and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS proved a statutory ground for termination based on a parent’s criminal sentence covering a substantial portion of the child’s life | DHS: Ten-year sentence constitutes a substantial period of B.W.’s life, satisfying Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(viii) | Woodward: Claimed likely early release (about ten months) so sentence would not be substantial | Held: Court rejected speculation about early release; ten-year sentence to an incarcerated parent when child was nine covered the remainder of juvenile life and satisfied the statutory ground |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interest | DHS: Child was adoptable and returning him to an incarcerated parent would cause potential harm (lack of housing/stability) | Woodward: Argued against termination implicitly via challenges to process and services | Held: Court found clear-and-convincing evidence termination served B.W.’s best interests (adoptability and forward-looking potential harm) |
| Relevance of DHS providing services to incarcerated parent for the incarceration-based ground | Woodward: Questioned whether DHS provided services as in the case plan | DHS: Services not required to prove the incarceration ground | Held: Trial court properly excluded/service evidence as irrelevant to the incarceration-based statutory ground |
| Applicability of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) | Woodward: Raised ICWA question at hearing | DHS/Trial Court: Investigated and obtained Cherokee Nation confirmation that child is not an Indian child | Held: Trial court’s amended order properly found ICWA not applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 359 Ark. 131, 194 S.W.3d 739 (Ark. 2004) (procedure for appellate counsel filing no-merit brief in termination appeals)
- Dinkins v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 344 Ark. 207, 40 S.W.3d 286 (Ark. 2001) (trial court’s advantage in judging witness credibility merits deference)
- Myers v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. 182, 380 S.W.3d 906 (Ark. 2011) (best-interest analysis requires considering adoptability and potential harm if child returned)
- Moses v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 441 S.W.3d 54 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (criminal sentence length can constitute a substantial period of a child’s life supporting termination)