Martin v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
| Decision Date | 14 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | CV-22-334 |
| Citation | 2022 Ark. App. 508,657 S.W.3d 881 |
| Parties | Royal MARTIN, Appellant v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES and Minor Child, Appellees |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Tabitha McNulty, Arkansas Commission for Parent Counsel, for appellant.
Ellen K. Howard, Jonesboro, Ark. Dep't of Human Services, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee.
Dana McClain, Little Rock, attorney ad litem for minor child.
Royal Martin appeals from the February 28, 2022 order of the Dallas County Circuit Court terminating his parental rights to his minor child (Minor Child 1). He argues that the circuit court's best-interest determination was flawed because the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) failed to prove that termination was in Minor Child 1's best interest because (1) the circuit court failed to consider the potential-harm prong as required by the plain language of the relevant statute, and (2) there was a less restrictive alternative to termination available. We affirm.
This case began on November 16, 2020, when DHS filed a petition for dependency-neglect concerning Samantha Castillo and her two minor children. Although not initially named as parties, Martin was identified as Minor Child 1's putative father, and Addison Carver was named as Minor Child 2's putative father. The petition also noted that Martin was currently incarcerated at the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC).
DHS became involved with the family because Castillo had been leaving the young children home alone, and she had failed to actively participate in the protective-services case offered by DHS. When the case began, both minor children remained in Castillo's custody.
On January 20, 2021, the circuit court held an adjudication and disposition hearing and found the two minor children to be dependent-neglected on the basis of inadequate supervision by Castillo. The resulting order was entered on February 26. Martin was not listed as attending the hearing, and the order made no findings regarding service of process on him. Pursuant to the order, the minor children remained in Castillo's custody, and Castillo was ordered to comply with court orders to complete certain tasks and cooperate with DHS. The circuit court also ordered paternity testing for Minor Child 2 and the putative father, Carver, but did not issue any orders regarding Martin.
A review hearing was held on March 17 with an order entered on April 19 and an amended order entered on May 7. The circuit court placed both minor children in DHS custody because of Castillo's unfitness and failure to comply with services. The case goal was amended to reunification with relative placement or adoption as concurrent goals. Martin was not present at the hearing, and there were no findings regarding service, notice, or orders directed toward him. DHS, however, was again ordered to perform paternity testing for Minor Child 2 and the putative father, Carver.
Another review hearing was held on July 21. In the resulting order entered August 11, Carver, as Minor Child 2's father, was added as a party to the case. The goal of the case remained reunification, but the concurrent goals were set as adoption, guardianship, and permanent custody. Although Martin was not present at the hearing, the circuit court did order that paternity testing be completed to determine if he is Minor Child 1's father. Additionally, the circuit court found that Castillo was not in compliance with the case plan and court orders.
In a September 27 order that followed a September 15 teleconference, the circuit court placed permanent custody of Minor Child 2 with her father, Carver, and closed the case with respect to Minor Child 2.
On November 17, 2021, the circuit court held a permanency-planning hearing and changed the goal to adoption for Minor Child 1. Martin again was not present and remained incarcerated. In support of the change, the circuit court cited Castillo's failure to comply with the case plan and court orders. Additionally, it found Martin to be Minor Child 1's biological father on the basis of DNA testing and listed Martin as a parent in the case style. Further, the circuit court found that Minor Child 1 is adoptable and that her current paternal relative foster-care placement, Norikia Mason, was interested in adopting her.
On November 29, DHS filed a termination petition against both Castillo and Martin. For the first time in any pleading, Martin was listed as a party and named as a parent of Minor Child 1. DHS alleged that termination of Martin's parental rights was in Minor Child 1's best interest and warranted pursuant to multiple statutory grounds. DHS pled facts as to the potential harm Castillo posed but made no such allegation about Martin. The petition noted Martin had not been served pursuant to Rule 4 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure when the case began.
The circuit court entered a permanency-planning order on December 3, directing Martin to attend the next hearing in the matter, which was scheduled to be the termination hearing, via Zoom. The goal of the case was changed to adoption as a result of Castillo's actions. The circuit court concluded concurrent planning was not necessary. Martin was found to be Minor Child 1's father and was made a party to the case. DHS was ordered to investigate Martin's contact with Minor Child 1. The circuit court again found that Minor Child 1 is adoptable and that her current paternal relative foster-care placement, Norikia Mason, was interested in adopting her.
Following a continuance, the termination hearing was held on February 16, 2022. Martin was again ordered to appear via Zoom. The first witness to offer testimony was Lasonya Goffin, a family-service worker with DHS. She recounted the history of the case, focusing on DHS's efforts regarding Castillo. Goffin did discuss that DHS had conducted a DNA test on Martin following a court order and acknowledged that Martin had requested the testing. She noted that the DNA test confirmed that Martin is Minor Child 1's father but acknowledged that it was known in November 2020 that Martin was alleged to be Minor Child 1's father. Goffin explained that she knew Martin was incarcerated and had been receiving services from the ADC. She testified that she had spoken with Martin either two or three times during the case.
Quita Harris, another DHS worker, testified that she believes Minor Child 1 is adoptable. She confirmed that Minor Child 1's current foster parent—a relative of Martin—wanted to adopt Minor Child 1.
Martin also testified at the termination hearing that when Minor Child 1 was born, he sent money to pay for items for Minor Child 1. He explained that he became imprisoned shortly after Minor Child 1's birth. He testified that while incarcerated, he had video visits with Minor Child 1 and also visited with Minor Child 1 while in foster care at least three times a week by phone. Minor Child 1 knew him and called him "Daddy." Martin testified that DHS did not offer him any services, but he confirmed Goffin's testimony that he spoke with someone from DHS approximately three times during the pendency of the case. He testified that he did not want his parental rights terminated.
Norikia Mason, Martin's relative and Minor Child 1's foster parent, also testified. She stated that she was not opposed to having Minor Child 1 in her home through a guardianship or permanent custody rather than adoption. This testimony was not challenged by DHS or the ad litem.
In his closing argument, Martin's counsel noted that DHS failed to present evidence as to why adoption was necessary for Minor Child 1 to achieve permanency or proof that Martin posed a risk to his child. When ruling, the circuit court noted that the issue of adoption versus guardianship was "premature" and that even if the court granted the termination petition, "we still have to figure out what the ultimate goal is going to be, and I still have several goals to choose from." The circuit court authorized Martin to continue to have contact with Minor Child 1, which DHS did not object to or argue against.
The circuit court entered its order terminating the parental rights of both Castillo and Martin on February 28. The circuit court found that termination of Martin's parental rights was in Minor Child 1's best interest and warranted pursuant to one statutory ground, specifically, the "sentenced in a criminal proceeding" ground. Within its best-interest analysis, the circuit court, however, considered the potential harm to Minor Child 1 as it related only to Castillo and not to Martin. Following the entry of the order, the circuit court entered a continuance order in the matter, continuing the next permanency-planning hearing as DHS needed "time to develop a permanency plan." Martin filed a timely notice of appeal on March 17.
Our court recently reiterated our standard of review in parental-rights termination cases in Houston v. Arkansas Department of Human Services , 2022 Ark. App. 326, at 6–7, 652 S.W.3d 188, 191–92 :
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace v. Rail Res., LLC
...2022 Ark. App. 506657 S.W.3d 875Samuel WALLACE and Mary Wallace, ... ...