Show notes
https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/courtofappeals/en/item/515367/index.do
This case involved four children who were brought into care in December 2017 when their youngest sibling died from physical abuse and neglect. They were adjudication dependent-neglected in February 2018 on the basis of parental unfitness, inadequate supervision, and substance abuse. Two review hearings and two permanency planning hearings were held before DHS filed its termination petition in February 2020. In that interim, the mother had been charged with and pled guilty to second-degree murder and endangering the welfare of a minor. She was sentenced to 120 months imprisonment and 240 months suspended for the second-degree murder charge, and 72 months imprisonment for the endangering charge. Her sentences were to run consecutively, for a total of 36 years.
The termination hearing was held in November and December of 2020, and the order was entered in March 2021 finding that multiple grounds supported termination, as well as that termination was in the best interests of the children. The trial court specifically noted that “regardless of adoptability, it is in the best interest of the children” to terminate the mother’s rights. The mother challenged only the best interest finding on appeal; specifically that the evidence of adoptability was not sufficient.
The COA began its analysis by reminding us that “adoptability is not an essential element in a termination case; rather it is merely a factor that must be considered by the circuit court in determining the best interest of the child.” Tucker, 2011 Ark. App. 430 & Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3). Also that “there is no requirement that an adoption specialist testify at the termination hearing or that the process of permanent placement be completed at the time of the termination hearing.” Fortenberry, 2009 Ark. App. 352. And that “there is no requirement to prove this factor by clear and convincing evidence or to identify an exact family that, upon termination, would be willing to adopt the child.” Reed, 2012 Ark. App. 369.
The COA went on to state that “the Juvenile Code does not require ‘magic words’ or a ‘specific quantum’ of evidence to support a circuit court’s finding regarding adoptability.” Sharks, 2016 Ark. App. 435. And that “it merely requires that if an adoptability finding is made, then evidence must exist to support it.” Haynes, 2010 Ark. App. 28. Also, “evidence that adoptive parents have been found is not required,...and neither is evidence that proves the child will be adopted.” McFarland, 91 Ark. App. 323, and Renfro, 2011 Ark. App. 419. Finally, the COA noted that “the Juvenile Code does not require certainty, let alone a ‘guarantee,’ that siblings be adopted as a group.” Corley, 2018 Ark. App. 397.
Here, the caseworker testified that the children were adoptable, although the oldest had issues that would likely delay her adoption longer than her siblings. This was enough. “While keeping siblings together is a commendable goal and an important consideration, it is but one factor that must be considered when determining the best interest of the child.” Couch, 38 Ark. App. 165.
The COA also noted the mother’s conviction for murder, and that the trial court found that termination was in the children’s best interests regardless of their adoptability.
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
Stay Connected
