This subchapter shall be liberally construed to the end that its purposes may be carried out:
To assure that all juveniles brought to the attention of the courts receive the guidance, care, and control, preferably in each juvenile's own home when the juvenile's health and safety are not at risk, that will best serve the emotional, mental, and physical welfare of the juvenile and the best interest of the state;
To preserve and strengthen the juvenile's family ties when it is in the best interest of the juvenile;
To protect a juvenile by considering the juvenile's health and safety as the paramount concerns in determining whether or not to remove the juvenile from the custody of his or her parents or custodians, removing the juvenile only when the safety and protection of the public cannot adequately be safeguarded without such removal;
When a juvenile is removed from his or her own family, to secure for him or her custody, care, and discipline with primary emphasis on ensuring the health and safety of the juvenile while in the out-of-home placement; and
To assure, in all cases in which a juvenile must be permanently removed from the custody of his or her parents, that the juvenile be placed in an approved family home and be made a member of the family by adoption;
To protect society more effectively by substituting for retributive punishment, whenever possible, methods of offender rehabilitation and rehabilitative restitution, recognizing that the application of sanctions that are consistent with the seriousness of the offense is appropriate in all cases; and
To provide means through which the provisions of this subchapter are executed and enforced and in which the parties are assured a fair hearing and their constitutional and other legal rights recognized and enforced.
Amendments.
The 2007 amendment deleted “as nearly as possible equivalent to that which should have been given by his or her parents” following “discipline” in (2)(C).
Research References
U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.
Annual Survey of Caselaw, Family Law, 26 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 911.
Jerald A. Sharum, The Arkansas Supreme Court’s Unconstitutional Power Grab in Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Shelby and the Judiciary’s Authority in Child-Welfare Cases, 37 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 391 (2015).
Case Notes
Purpose.
Trial court properly terminated the parental rights of the mother and father under § 9-27-341 and found that each parent, either as the offender or as the accomplice, had committed a felony battery against a grandson of the mother because the mother's story that she was not involved was implausible considering the medical testimony; termination was in the child's best interests under § 9-27-341(b)(3)(A)(i) and (ii) given that the child was a dependent-neglected child under § 9-27-303, and one purpose of subdivision (2)(B) of this section was to protect a juvenile's safety. Todd v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 85 Ark. App. 174, 151 S.W.3d 315 (2004).
Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) was not entitled to certiorari relief in a dependency-neglect proceeding because the circuit court was within its jurisdiction under subdivision (1) of this section to act to protect the integrity of the proceeding and to safeguard the rights of the litigants before it when it ordered DHS to correct problems that were preventing work and services.
Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Shelby, 2012 Ark. 54 (2012).
Although initially identified as a putative parent and a paternity test established that he was the father, nothing in the record showed that the father's legal status as a putative parent or biological parent, as defined in § 9-27-303, was established to apply the 12-month time period described in § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)
(b)
or (b)(3)(B)(ii)
(a)
, and therefore the circuit court erred in terminating his parental rights. This interpretation supported the goal of the juvenile system provided in this section, which shall be liberally construed.
Earls v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2017 Ark. 171, 518 S.W.3d 81 (2017).
Applicability.
Nowhere in this section is it suggested, or even implied, that the provisions of this subchapter are applicable to an unborn fetus still in its mother's womb. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Collier, 351 Ark. 506, 95 S.W.3d 772 (2003).
Best Interests.
Trial court erred under subdivisions (1) and (2)(A) of this section in awarding permanent custody to maternal grandparents on the ground that it was in the children's best interest; while the children's father had some issues to resolve, since the case was commenced, a mere six months before the trial court awarded the grandparents custody, he had no positive drug tests, maintained employment, and was living in an approved housing situation with his parents.
Chase v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 311, 416 S.W.3d 252 (2012).
Trial Court's Authority.
Trial court's order did not violate § 9-28-207 as it did not dictate placement but stated only that if the juvenile was going to be in the Department of Human Services'
custody, he had to receive treatment.
Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 137, 516 S.W.3d 743 (2017).
Cited:
Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Clark, 304 Ark. 403, 802 S.W.2d 461 (1991); Valdez v. State, 33 Ark. App. 94, 801 S.W.2d 659 (1991); Nance v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 316 Ark. 43, 870 S.W.2d 721 (1994); King v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 464, 562 S.W.3d 226 (2018).
Earls v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 2017 Ark. 171 (Ark. 2017). · cites it 8דSecond, Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-302 “Construction,” provides in pertinent part: This subchapter shall be liberally construed to the end that its purposes may be carried out: (1) To assure that all juveniles brought to the attention of the courts receive the guidance, care, and…”
Kohlman v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Child., 544 S.W.3d 595 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4דSee Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-302 (Repl. 2015). This is because few consequences of judicial action are so grave as the severance of natural family ties.”
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Collier, 95 S.W.3d 772 (Ark. 2003). · cites it 5דOur conclusion is emphasized by Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-302 (Repl. 2002), which sets forth the purposes of the Juvenile Code relating to protection and custody of juveniles: This subchapter shall be liberally construed to the end that its purposes may be carried out: (1) To assure…”
Meriweather v. Arkansas Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 255 S.W.3d 505 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4דA year — literally to the day — later, the Department filed the petition to terminate Meriweather’s parental rights.”
Brewer v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 43 S.W.3d 196 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4דArkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-302(2) (B) provides that one purpose of the Juvenile Code is “[t]o protect a juvenile by considering the juvenile’s health and safety as the paramount concerns in determining whether or not to remove the juvenile from the custody of his…”
Butler v. State, 922 S.W.2d 685 (Ark. 1996). · cites it 8דA declaration of purpose for this legislation is found at Ark.Code Ann. § 9-27-302. It is important in the context of this appeal and warrants our reconsideration: This subchapter shall be liberally construed to the end that its purposes may be carried out: (1) To assure that…”
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Clark, 802 S.W.2d 461 (Ark. 1991). · cites it 9דThe Juvenile Code sets out affirmative requirements designed to achieve the purposes stated at Ark.Code Ann. § 9-27-302 (1989). Among the requirements imposed on the juvenile court are those to consider what efforts have been made, to determine if those efforts have been…”
Benedict v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 242 S.W.3d 305 (Ark. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2דOnce a child has been adjudicated dependent-neglected, there is a presumption that DHS will provide services to preserve and strengthen the family unit. See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-327 (a)(2) (Supp.”
Boyd v. State, 853 S.W.2d 263 (Ark. 1993). · cites it 4ד[ Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-302 (3) (Repl.1991).”
C.B. v. State, 406 S.W.3d 796 (Ark. 2012). · cites it 4דcites the purposes listed in section 9-27-302(3) (Repl.2009), which is "[t]o protect society more effectively by substituting for retributive punishment, whenever possible, methods of offender rehabilitation and rehabilitative restitution, recognizing that the application of…”
Taffner v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. 231 (Ark. 2016). · cites it 2ד§ 9-27-341(a)(3) (stating that the intent of termination of parental rights is to provide permanency when returning the child to his parents is contrary to the his best interest). This is why, for example, we adopted Supreme Court Rule 6-9, which provides for expedited appeals…”
Renfro v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 385 S.W.3d 285 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2דIn Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-302, the legislature stated that the purpose was in pertinent part: (1) To assure that all juveniles brought to the attention of the courts receive the guidance, care, and control, preferably in each juvenile’s own home when the juvenile’s…”
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Clark, 802 S.W.2d 461 (Ark. 1991). “The Juvenile Code sets out affirmative requirements designed to achieve the purposes stated at Ark.Code Ann. § 9-27-302 (1989). Among the requirements imposed on the juvenile court are those to consider what efforts have been made, to determine if those efforts have been…”
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Clark, 802 S.W.2d 461 (Ark. 1991). “The Juvenile Code sets out affirmative requirements designed to achieve the purposes stated at Ark.Code Ann. § 9-27-302 (1989). Among the requirements imposed on the juvenile court are those to consider what efforts have been made, to determine if those efforts have been…”
Brewer v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 43 S.W.3d 196 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001). “Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-302(2) (B) provides that one purpose of the Juvenile Code is “[t]o protect a juvenile by considering the juvenile’s health and safety as the paramount concerns in determining whether or not to remove the juvenile from the custody of his…”
Brewer v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 43 S.W.3d 196 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001). “Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-302(2) (B) provides that one purpose of the Juvenile Code is “[t]o protect a juvenile by considering the juvenile’s health and safety as the paramount concerns in determining whether or not to remove the juvenile from the custody of his…”
Taffner v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. 231 (Ark. 2016). “§ 9-27-341(a)(3) (stating that the intent of termination of parental rights is to provide permanency when returning the child to his parents is contrary to the his best interest). This is why, for example, we adopted Supreme Court Rule 6-9, which provides for expedited appeals…”
C.B. v. State, 406 S.W.3d 796 (Ark. 2012). “cites the purposes listed in section 9-27-302(3) (Repl.2009), which is "[t]o protect society more effectively by substituting for retributive punishment, whenever possible, methods of offender rehabilitation and rehabilitative restitution, recognizing that the application of…”
C.B. v. State, 406 S.W.3d 796 (Ark. 2012). “cites the purposes listed in section 9-27-302(3) (Repl.2009), which is "[t]o protect society more effectively by substituting for retributive punishment, whenever possible, methods of offender rehabilitation and rehabilitative restitution, recognizing that the application of…”
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.