Wright v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2014 Ark. App. 676
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- DHS removed S.W. and her sibling in Sept. 2012 based on the mother's drug use and unsafe home; mother waived probable cause and was later terminated as a parent.
- Christian Wright (appellant) was incarcerated throughout the proceedings; his status in the case shifted inconsistently (listed variously as legal father, putative father, and not a party).
- A prior default paternity order concerning Wright was later voided; DNA testing showed a 0% probability that Wright was S.W.’s biological father.
- Despite the DNA result and the court’s earlier finding that Wright was not the biological father, DHS filed to terminate his parental rights as S.W.’s presumptive legal father and alleged lack of significant contacts and incarceration as grounds.
- The circuit court entered an order terminating Wright’s parental rights to S.W.; Wright appealed, arguing no parental rights existed to terminate and evidence did not support termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wright had parental status (legal, presumptive, or putative) subject to termination | Wright: He was not biological, putative, or presumptive father; no parental rights attached | DHS: Wright was a presumptive legal father and could be terminated under statutory grounds | Court: Wright had no parental status to terminate; termination reversed and dismissed as to him |
| Whether evidence supported termination under statutory grounds (e.g., non-biological presumptive father; lack of significant contacts; incarceration) | Wright: DNA proved non-paternity and there was no clear-and-convincing evidence he had rights to terminate | DHS: DNA alone does not prevent termination of a presumptive father; incarceration and lack of contacts supported best-interest findings | Court: Statutory ground relied upon did not fit Wright’s actual status; evidence insufficient because he was not a proper subject for that termination ground |
| Mootness of appeal and procedural posture (challenge despite no trial-level motion) | Wright: Appeal is not moot because an involuntary termination has broader consequences and the court improperly terminated nonexisting rights | DHS: Claimed appeal moot since DNA showed zero paternity and termination was effectively harmless | Court: Appeal not moot; party need not have moved for dismissal below to raise sufficiency of evidence on appeal; termination of nonexistent rights is reviewable |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 103 Ark. App. 193, 287 S.W.3d 633 (2008) (standard of review for termination orders: de novo)
- Ingle v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2014 Ark. 53, 431 S.W.3d 303 (2014) (preservation and appellate review principles clarified)
- Searcy Farm Supply, LLC v. Merchs. & Planters Bank, 369 Ark. 487, 256 S.W.3d 496 (2007) (appellate review and waiver principles in bench trials)
- Bass v. Koller, 276 Ark. 93, 632 S.W.2d 410 (1982) (appellate waiver and sufficiency principles)