Yarbrough v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2016 Ark. App. 429
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- DHS removed three Yarbrough children in Nov. 2013 after parents tested positive for methamphetamine and other drugs; petition for emergency custody and dependency-neglect findings followed.
- Circuit court ordered Joshua to submit to random drug testing, obtain assessments, complete parenting classes, maintain stable housing/employment, and participate in treatment; supervised visitation conditioned on negative screens.
- Children were returned briefly in 2014 but removed again after failed hair-follicle tests and the parents’ noncooperation; Joshua was ordered to complete outpatient drug treatment but did not.
- Joshua moved out in Jan. 2015, relocated (Ozark then Missouri), was arrested on methamphetamine-delivery charges in July 2015, and was incarcerated for a 42-month sentence.
- DHS filed to terminate parental rights in Nov. 2015; termination hearing held Feb. 2016. Caseworker testified services were provided and children’s foster relatives sought to adopt.
- The circuit court terminated Joshua’s parental rights under the "subsequent-factors" ground (Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(vii)(A)) and found termination in the children’s best interest. Joshua appealed only the sufficiency of services issue.
Issues
| Issue | Yarbrough's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHS failed to offer appropriate family services in a timely fashion (required element of the subsequent-factors ground) | DHS did not offer required outpatient drug treatment as ordered (March 2015 order); thus termination was improper because services were not provided and might have prevented later criminal conduct | Circuit court previously found DHS made reasonable/more than adequate efforts at subsequent hearings; Joshua did not raise services objection at termination hearing and did not appeal earlier reasonable-efforts findings | Waived; appellate court affirms. Court treats prior reasonable-efforts findings as binding because Joshua didn’t appeal or object at termination hearing. |
| Whether the subsequent-factors ground and best-interest finding were supported by clear and convincing evidence | (Not directly contested on appeal) | DHS showed Joshua’s continued substance issues, instability, incarceration, and the children’s lengthy foster placement making adoption likely | Court found clear and convincing evidence to support termination and best-interest finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Contreras v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 474 S.W.3d 510 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (court will not require DHS to reprove earlier factual findings when appellant had opportunity to challenge them at termination hearing)
- Henson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 434 S.W.3d 371 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (prior nonreunification orders may be nonfinal and thus not always preclusive on appeal)
- Brumley v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 455 S.W.3d 347 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (failure to appeal earlier meaningful-efforts findings generally precludes appellate review of those rulings)