DHS v. Arabia Jackson, 2021 Ark. App. 464, Nov. 17, 2021
Adjudication, Reversed and Remanded

PRIMARY ISSUE(S): EVIDENCE

A hotline report was made on February 24, 2021, which alleged that the mother had tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamines at the time of the birth of her twins. Three older siblings were in DHS custody at the time. The twins were taken into DHS custody on March 2nd, and an ex parte order was entered on the 4th. The trial court found probable cause on April 13th, based on the mother’s positive drug tests at the time of the twins’ birth, and noting that the twins were still in the hospital, on oxygen, and going through withdrawals.

The adjudication hearing was held on May 11, 2021, and only the DHS investigator testified. The twins’ birth records were also admitted into evidence. Those records included statements from the social worker and doctor regarding the mother’s drug use and positive drug test. The records also included the twins’ umbilical-cord drug test, which was positive for amphetamines.

The trial court denied and dismissed the DN petition because the records included the acronyms “MOB” and “UDS”. The trial court stated in part “I don’t know who MOB is and even UDS. I would have to assume that is a urine drug screen, as there’s no urine drug screen actually– mother actually in this packet to know that that’s what they’re referring to, to tie that together.” The trial court also stated concerns with the DHS worker’s inability to use the CHRIS system to look up past services to the family.

The COA started by stating that the purpose of the adjudication hearing is to determine if the allegations in the DN petition are substantiated by proof, and that the burden of proof is on the petitioner to show by a preponderance of the evidence. Hall, 2021 Ark. App. 108. The court also referenced the definition of neglect, which includes causing a child to be born with drugs in their system. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(37)(B)(i), and (37)(B)(ii)-(iv). The COA also noted that, even though the term “parental unfitness” is not defined in the code, “appellate courts have repeatedly held that parental drug use is sufficient evidence of parental unfitness.” Garner, 2020 Ark. App. 328.

Based on the evidence presented to the trial court, the COA found that “it is patently obvious by context that ‘SW’ refers to ‘social worker,’ ‘MOB’ refers to ‘mother of babies,’ i.e., [the mother], and that ‘UDS’ is a ‘urine drug screen.” The court went on to say that “the trial court erred in requiring DHS to explain commonly used acronyms in the medical records and further erred by requiring proof of [the mother’s] actual positive drug screen be introduced. Neither the trial court nor this court is required to set aside common sense in assessing the evidence, and the medical records conclusively demonstrated that [the mother’s] bodily fluids tested positive for methamphetamine contemporaneous with the birth of the twins.”

In a foot note, the COA also stated that “the trial court’s ‘concerns’ about the caseworker’s unfamiliarity with the CHRIS system constitute no grounds to deny the dependency-neglect petition.”