Ark. Code Ann. » Title 9 Chapter 27
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-102 (2026)

Best interest of the child

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The General Assembly recognizes that children are defenseless and that there is no greater moral obligation upon the General Assembly than to provide for the protection of our children and that our child welfare system needs to be strengthened by establishing a clear policy of the state that the best interests of the children must be paramount and shall have precedence at every stage of juvenile court proceedings. The best interest of the child shall be the standard for juvenile court determinations as to whether a child should be reunited with his or her family or removed from or remain in a home wherein the child has been abused or neglected.

History. Acts 1995, No. 1337, § 1; 2011, No. 591, § 4.

A.C.R.C. Notes. Acts 2007, No. 643, § 1, provided:

“(a) The purpose of this act is to request that the House Interim Committee on Aging, Children and Youth, Legislative and Military Affairs and the Senate Interim Committee on Children and Youth:

“(1) Study the juvenile justice system regarding juveniles who have been committed to the Division of Youth Services of the Department of Health and Human Services or who are otherwise being detained in juvenile detention centers;

“(2) Evaluate the educational outcomes of these juveniles; and

“(3) Report the findings to the House Interim Committee on Education and the Senate Interim Committee on Education.

“(b) The House Interim Committee on Aging, Children and Youth, Legislative and Military Affairs and the Senate Interim Committee on Children and Youth shall conduct an investigation under this section by utilizing data, reports, and testimony provided from all of the stakeholders involved in this system, including, but not limited to:

“(1) The Director of the Division of Youth Services of the Department of Human Services;

“(2) The Commissioner of Education of the Department of Education;

“(3) The Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts;

“(4) A representative from the Juvenile Ombudsman Division of the Arkansas Public Defender Commission;

“(5) Disability rights advocates with knowledge of special education needs; and

“(6) Any other stakeholders involved in the delivery of services to juveniles committed to the juvenile justice system.”

Amendments. The 2011 amendment substituted “Best interest of the child” for “Legislative determinations” in the section heading; and deleted “for recommendations made by employees of the Department of Human Services and” following “shall be the standard” in the last sentence.

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

Note, What About the Child?: A Critique of Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 60 Ark. L. Rev. 353.

Case Notes

Americans with Disabilities Act.

Rights of a parent under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, must be subordinated to the protected rights of a child, consistent with the mandate in this section that all juvenile court proceedings be viewed in terms of what is in the best interest of the child. J.T. v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (1997).

Balancing Interests.

Department of Health Services did not violate a father's free exercise of religion by creating a reunification plan which required the father to obtain housing and employment separate and apart from a ministry compound because the state's interest in preventing potential harm to the father's minor children outweighed the father's conscientious choice to live on ministry property, work for the ministry, and depend on the ministry for the family's every need. Thorne v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 443, 374 S.W.3d 912 (2010), overruled in part, Myers v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. 182, 380 S.W.3d 906.

Judicial Authority.

Trial court did not unlawfully delegate judicial authority to therapists who denied parent visitation with child only during periods when court and therapists determined contact would be detrimental to child, because therapists must be given some discretion in carrying out orders of the court where a child's emotional, mental or physical health is at stake. J.T. v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 329 Ark. 243, 947 S.W.2d 761 (1997).

Cited: Earls v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2017 Ark. 171, 518 S.W.3d 81 (2017); McKinney v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2017 Ark. App. 475, 527 S.W.3d 778 (2017).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1997–2023 · leading case: J.T. v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 947 S.W.2d 761 (Ark. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
J.T. v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 947 S.W.2d 761 (Ark. 1997). · cites it 4× “In that respect, we agree with the reasoning espoused by the Indiana Court of Appeals that the parent's rights under the ADA must be subordinated to the protected rights of the child.”
Earls v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 2017 Ark. 171 (Ark. 2017). · cites it 3× “§ 9-27-102 “Best Interest of the Child” provides The General Assembly recognizes that children are defenseless and that there is no greater moral obligation upon the General Assembly than to provide for the protection of our children and that our child welfare system needs to be…”
Burkett v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. App. 570 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “§ 9-27-341 (a)(3) & Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-102 (Repl. 2015). Our, statute governing termination of parental rights sets forth its intent to “provide permanency in a juvenile’s life” in all circumstances where return to the family home is contrary to the juvenile’s health,…”
Porter v. Arkansas Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 286 S.W.3d 686 (Ark. 2008). · cites it 2× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-102 . This court has clearly and succinctly said that it will not allow the rights of parents to override a child’s best interests: While we agree that the rights of natural parents are not to be passed over lightly, these rights must give way to the…”
McKinney v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 2017 Ark. App. 475 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “§ 9-27-341 (a)(3) & Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-102 (Repl. 2015)). 32 .”
Devine v. Martens, 263 S.W.3d 515 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 2× “See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 9-27-102 - 9-28-1003 (Repl.”
Golden v. State, 21 S.W.3d 801 (Ark. 2000). · cites it 2× “The distinctions existing between juveniles and adults are recognized by the legislature in Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-102 , which states, “The General Assembly recognizes that children are defenseless and that there is no greater moral obligation upon the General Assembly than to…”
Ellis v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. 441 (Ark. 2016). · cites it 4× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-102 (Repl. 2015). First, it is true that the Arkansas Juvenile Code sets forth a general preference for relative placement.”
Howerton v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. App. 560 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-102 . Therefore, I would affirm the circuit court’s termination of Howerton’s parental rights as being necessary to conclusively clear G.”
Malone v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 30 S.W.3d 758 (Ark. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-102 (Repl. 1998) & § 9-27-341 (Supp.”
Ashley Wagner v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Child., 2023 Ark. App. 400 (Ark. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “Those formal statements might offer parents in ongoing dependency-neglect proceedings little guidance about how to save their parental rights. They boil down to this: Some progress is not always enough.”
Thorne v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 374 S.W.3d 912 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “3d 686, 693 (2008) (internal citations omitted); see also Ark.Code Ann. § 9-27-102 (Repl.2009). And in child custody disputes, for example, a parent’s religiously motivated choices and actions are material if they affect a child’s well being.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.