Moore v. Arkansas Department of Human Services — Arkansas court affirms return of child to mother and limited father’s visitation

Case
Marvin Moore v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Child
Court
Arkansas Court of Appeals
Judge
Stephanie Potter Barrett; Robert J. Gladwin; Kenneth S. Tucker
Date Decided
August 19, 2026
Docket No.
CV-26-90
Topics
Dependency-neglect; child custody; visitation; permanency
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

DHS took emergency custody of the child after the mother, Jamie Schuh, was arrested on a North Dakota felony warrant and no caregiver was available. The father, Marvin Moore, lived in Georgia. The circuit court adjudicated the child dependent and ordered an ICPC home study for Moore, which Georgia approved.

The circuit court nevertheless denied Moore’s placement request and required a psychological evaluation. By the October 2025 review hearing, Schuh had completed parenting classes and counseling, maintained employment and housing, and successfully completed a trial home placement. Moore had not seen the child in person since infancy, declined to complete a DHS-approved psychological evaluation, and declined opportunities to travel to Arkansas for visitation.

The Court’s Holding

The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the order returning permanent custody to Schuh and closing the dependency-neglect case. The review-order statute required the circuit court to decide whether return to a parent would protect the child’s health and safety and serve the child’s best interest. The appellate court held that the circuit court considered both parents, rather than merely Schuh’s case-plan compliance.

The evidence supported placement with Schuh: the child had lived with her throughout his life, was doing well in her trial placement, and identified her as a source of safety. The child expressed worry about Moore, who had little relationship with him and had not completed the requested evaluation. Moore’s challenge to the earlier “reunification with a fit parent” goal was not preserved for appeal.

The court also upheld visitation twice weekly by phone or video, with Arkansas in-person visits supervised through STEPS at Moore’s expense and upon notice. Visitation in this dependency-neglect disposition was governed by the child’s best interest, and the circuit court did not clearly err given the child’s reluctance to visit, the parents’ conflict, and Moore’s limited involvement.

Key Takeaways

  • A review hearing may return a child to a parent and close a dependency-neglect case when the child’s safety and best interests support that outcome.
  • An approved ICPC home study does not require placement with that parent when the overall record supports another placement.
  • Visitation set in a permanent-custody dependency-neglect order remains discretionary and may later be modified in a domestic-relations action.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores that custody determinations in dependency-neglect review proceedings turn on the child’s safety and best interests, including the child’s established relationships, stability, and expressed concerns—not simply a parent’s technical compliance with a case plan or an approved out-of-state home study.

It also confirms that a juvenile court may set protective visitation conditions when awarding permanent custody and closing the case, while leaving future modification to a domestic-relations proceeding.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top