Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-327 (2026)

Case Notes

Adjudication.

Trial court did not adjudicate the child as dependent-neglected based merely on the fact that her siblings had previously been adjudicated dependent-neglected; instead, the severe and still-unexplained injuries that a sibling sustained as a result of abuse and neglect in the mother's custody placed the child at substantial risk of serious harm, and the adjudication was proper. Merritt v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 552, 473 S.W.3d 31 (2015).

Decision to begin a trial home placement with the mother did not render the dependent-neglected adjudication illogical; the trial home placement was contingent on the mother's compliance with a detailed safety plan and § 9-27-329 requires the court to give preference to the least restrictive disposition consistent with the juvenile's best interest. Although the child was at substantial risk of serious harm, a safety plan and continued services would help to minimize the risk of harm in a trial home placement. Merritt v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 552, 473 S.W.3d 31 (2015).

Appellate Review.

Because the mother did not appeal from the adjudication order, even though she could have done so under Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 6-9(a)(1)(A), the circuit court's findings in the order were no longer open to challenge by the mother and precluded from review in an appeal from a subsequent order. Porter v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 342 (2011).

In a case in which a mother appealed from an order of the circuit court adjudicating her son dependent-neglected, the appellate court agreed with the mother's counsel that an appeal of the circuit court's ruling would be frivolous and found that counsel adequately briefed the remaining adverse rulings. Billingsley v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 348 (2015).

Although mother argued that the circuit court erred by granting permanent custody to the children's fathers under this section (the adjudication statute) following the denial of the Department of Human Services' no-reunification motion because she lacked notice, the argument was not preserved for appellate review as the mother failed to object and make her specific due process argument below. Mixon v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2019 Ark. App. 554, 590 S.W.3d 746 (2019).

Court of Appeals was precluded from addressing a father's argument that the evidence did not support a dependency-neglect finding because the mother conceded the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the adjudication; further, the appellate court did not address the father's argument as to his contribution or lack thereof to the dependency-neglect because a dependency-neglect adjudication occurs without reference to which parent committed the acts or omissions leading to the adjudication. Day v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2020 Ark. App. 51, 595 S.W.3d 26 (2020).

Burden of Proof.

State failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that father's child should be adjudicated dependent under § 9-27-303 because, after the father was incarcerated, there were two different family members who stated they were willing to care for the child. Moiser v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 95 Ark. App. 32, 233 S.W.3d 172 (2006).

Court erred in adjudicating the children as dependent-neglected, because the Arkansas Department of Human Services failed to provide sufficient proof that the spankings were anything other than moderate or reasonable, and did not result in other than transient pain, and one incident that did not result in injury should not give rise to the removal of the children from the home. Johnson v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 244, 413 S.W.3d 549 (2012).

Preponderance of the evidence supported the trial court's decision adjudicating appellant's children dependent-neglected because they were in her care the day she was arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia and tested positive for methamphetamine. Because appellant's boys were in her apartment alone while she was in another apartment using drugs, the facts supported the allegation that appellant's conduct constituted neglect and placed her children at risk of substantial harm. Gaer v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 516 (2012).

Evidence.

Minor children removed from a ministry compound were properly adjudicated dependent-neglected where their father was aware of a pattern and practice of severe physical beatings, failed to protect them against physical abuse, and endorsed and facilitated illegal marriages of underage females to adults in the compound. 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.

Trial court could reasonably have concluded that certain medications had an impact on the mother's ability to appropriately supervise the children and to the extent the second adjudication was not superfluous, the trial court did not clearly err in adjudicating the children dependent-neglected. Scott v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 431 (2015).

Trial court did not clearly err in finding that a child was dependent-neglected based on abuse, neglect, and parental unfitness where testimony showed that the mother was violent and verbally abusive toward the child, she had been arrested for assaulting the child, she had not obtained counseling for the child despite ongoing behavioral issues, and her home was messy and unsanitary. Allen-Grace v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 83, 542 S.W.3d 205 (2018).

Trial court's finding that two children were dependent-neglected was affirmed given the abuse findings for their sibling. Allen-Grace v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 83, 542 S.W.3d 205 (2018).

Circuit court did not clearly err in finding neglect based on a failure to thrive caused by inadequate feeding; contrary to the mother's assertion, the inconsistencies and contradictions in her statements concerning what she was feeding the child and how much she was feeding him were proper considerations when evaluating the child's well-being. Bales v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 351, 552 S.W.3d 497 (2018).

Circuit court did not clearly err in adjudicating a child dependent-neglected because a preponderance of the evidence showed a mother undisputedly drove while intoxicated with the child in the car and was charged with a crime related to possession of a narcotic without a prescription, creating a dangerous situation and placing the child at substantial risk of serious harm, despite the mother's subsequent treatment plan compliance. Reeves v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2020 Ark. App. 72, 595 S.W.3d 401 (2020).

Hearing Required.

Trial court erred when it failed to conduct a scheduled adjudication hearing and take evidence on the issue of whether a mother's children were dependent-neglected and whether the assessments, evaluations, and services provided by the Department of Human Services were effective. Because there was no custody order in place, the trial court's order closing the case had the effect of returning the children to the legal custody of their mother without first addressing the need to protect the juveniles from further harm. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Veasley, 2016 Ark. App. 175 (2016).

Reasonable Efforts.

Trial court did not clearly err in continuing custody in the Department of Human Services (DHS) where the mother had failed to take advantage of parenting classes designed to provide safe and appropriate discipline techniques, and the trial court specifically found that continuing custody with DHS was in the children's best interests and for their protection and safety. Walker v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2017 Ark. App. 627, 534 S.W.3d 184 (2017).

Second Adjudication.

Trial court did not close the case after awarding custody of the children to the parents and another individual following the first adjudication, and both adjudications stemmed from allegations of inadequate supervision; thus, the second adjudication was not necessary and had no practical effect on the parents' position because their children were still dependent-neglected as a result of the first adjudication. Scott v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 431 (2015).

Timeliness.

Although the 14-day requirement of this section is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional; a juvenile's failure to demand a hearing waived the right to insist on a timely hearing, particularly since subsection (b) of this sectiion expressly provides that the time limitation may be waived by the juvenile. Robinson v. State, 41 Ark. App. 20, 847 S.W.2d 49 (1993).

Where child was taken to a hospital twice with multiple bone fractures, the trial court's refusal to grant the parents' request for a continuance to determine if the child had brittle-bone syndrome was not prejudicial because the trial court set the adjudication hearing as far out as possible, with the expectation that test results would be returned by then. Neves da Rocha v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 93 Ark. App. 386, 219 S.W.3d 660 (2005), cert. denied, a v. Ark. Health & Human Servs., 549 U.S. 811, 127 S. Ct. 346, 166 L. Ed. 2d 21 (2006).

While the circuit court's adjudication hearing and adjudication order were unquestionably untimely, the court's violation did not cause it to lose jurisdiction; the General Assembly did not provide a sanction for the violation and it was in the child's best interests that the mother's parental rights be terminated. Turner v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 52, 539 S.W.3d 635 (2018).

While it was unfortunate that the adjudication hearing was not held soon after one child had been taken into custody, which was what was contemplated by this section, the parents did not object to the continuances, and they did not raise any argument to the trial court about the timeliness of the hearing or the order; the appellate court rejected the mother's claim that the child had not been adjudicated dependent-neglected because the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction based on the untimely hearing. Parnell v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 108, 538 S.W.3d 264 (2018) (sub. op. on reh'g).

Circuit court did not err in adjudicating a mother's child dependent-neglected because it did not lose jurisdiction by failing to enter a written adjudication order within 30 days of the adjudication hearing, and to reverse would be contrary to the child's best interest; the circuit court did not commit reversible error by failing to enter a timely written adjudication order because subsection (f) of this section provided no specific consequences for the failure to abide by its mandatory dictates. Picinich v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 288, 549 S.W.3d 916 (2018).

Although the legislature has failed to incorporate statutory consequences for a circuit court's failure to comply with the statutory timelines in the juvenile code, the circuit courts are strongly encouraged to abide by these timelines because compliance is in the juveniles' best interests. Picinich v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 288, 549 S.W.3d 916 (2018).

Circuit court's untimely orders of probable cause and adjudication, which were both entered beyond the statutorily prescribed 30 days, did not warrant reversal or any other sanction. Westbrook v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2019 Ark. App. 352, 584 S.W.3d 258 (2019).

Cited: Troutt Bros. v. Emison, 311 Ark. 27, 841 S.W.2d 604 (1992); Dover v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 62 Ark. App. 37, 968 S.W.2d 635 (1998); Broderick v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 771, 358 S.W.3d 909 (2009); Merritt v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 503, 471 S.W.3d 231 (2015); Harris v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 508, 470 S.W.3d 316 (2015); Hambrick v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. App. 458, 503 S.W.3d 134 (2016).