Wright v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Child
560 S.W.3d 827
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- DHS removed DW (b. 12/30/2015) in Sept. 2016 after reports appellant used meth around the child, worked in escort/stripper contexts, and the home contained drug paraphernalia; appellant tested positive for meth/THC and was arrested for paraphernalia and endangering a minor.
- Court adjudicated DW dependent-neglected for parental unfitness (drug use); reunification ordered with supervised visitation and case-plan requirements (housing, employment, drug testing, evaluations, parenting/domestic-violence classes).
- Over the next 14–15 months appellant partially complied but showed instability (no steady housing, no reliable income, suspended license, late/poor participation in services) and incurred drug-court sanctions and incarceration.
- Permanency-planning hearing changed goal to adoption; DHS filed a termination petition and a termination hearing was held Nov. 29, 2017. Appellant requested a continuance to complete a 4-month OMART program; the court denied the continuance.
- Trial court terminated appellant’s parental rights on grounds including failure to remedy, subsequent factors, and aggravated circumstances, finding termination in DW’s best interest based on adoptability and potential for harm if returned to parents. Appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | DHS/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of continuance was an abuse of discretion | Wright argued denial prevented her from completing a 4-month OMART program and thus prejudiced her reunification prospects, amplified by the court’s delayed written order | DHS argued request was untimely (made at hearing start), appellant showed history of noncompliance, and no prejudice shown; delayed entry of written order does not mandate reversal | Denial affirmed: no abuse of discretion or prejudice; untimely request and history of noncompliance supported denial; late filing of written order not reversible error |
| Whether termination was in DW’s best interest | Wright argued she had tried to comply and termination was not necessary because she planned future treatment and rehabilitation | DHS argued child needed permanency, parents lacked stability (housing, income, license), were incarcerated, and returning child posed potential for physical/psychological harm; child was adoptable | Affirmed: trial court’s best-interest finding not clearly erroneous—child’s need for timely permanency and risk from parents’ instability supported termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 93 Ark. App. 395, 219 S.W.3d 705 (court will not reverse denial of continuance absent abuse of discretion)
- Wade v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 337 Ark. 353, 990 S.W.2d 509 (failure to file order within statutory time frame does not divest court of jurisdiction; late written order may simply memorialize bench ruling)