Background
The Arkansas Department of Human Services removed MC, then one year old, after reports of severe environmental neglect in the parents’ home. The home contained trash, old food, dirty diapers, dog feces, cigarette butts, and other hazards. MC’s cousin, who was also in the parents’ care, was hospitalized for failure to thrive.
Tabatha Wilson and Matthew Burgess substantially complied with many parts of the case plan, and the court initially pursued reunification. But a trial home placement failed amid concerns that the children were not being adequately fed or changed, were exposed to old food and accessible medication, and that the parents did not consistently apply parenting instruction. The circuit court terminated both parents’ rights to MC on three statutory grounds.
The Court’s Holding
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that clear and convincing evidence supported the subsequent-factors ground for termination: despite appropriate reunification services and participation in them, Wilson and Burgess remained unable to safely parent MC. Their inability to apply what they had learned, coupled with the failed trial home placement, supported that ground. Because one statutory ground suffices, the court did not need to address the other two grounds.
The court also upheld the best-interest finding. A caseworker’s testimony that MC had no barriers to adoption supported adoptability despite his autism diagnosis. Testimony about inadequate feeding and diapering, accessible old food and medication, poor supervision, and the parents’ inability to afford necessities supported the potential-harm finding if MC were returned.
Key Takeaways
- Completing or participating in a case plan does not preclude termination when a parent cannot safely care for the child.
- A failed trial home placement may support termination under Arkansas’s subsequent-factors ground.
- Caseworker testimony that there are no barriers to adoption can support the adoptability component of best interest.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that reunification efforts are measured by whether they result in safe, workable parenting, not merely by formal compliance with services. It also confirms that potential harm may rest on ongoing safety and caregiving deficiencies even where a home is otherwise livable.