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

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-402 (2020)

Case plans

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    1. A case plan shall be developed in all dependency-neglect cases or any case involving an out-of-home placement.
    2. The case plan developed by the Department of Human Services under § 9-28-111 shall be filed with the court no later than thirty (30) days after the date the petition was filed or the juvenile was first placed out of home, whichever is sooner.
    3. If the department does not have sufficient information before the adjudication hearing to complete all of the case plan, the department shall complete those parts for which information is available.
    4. All parts of the case plan shall be completed and filed with the court thirty (30) days after the adjudication hearing.
  2. The case plan is subject to court approval upon review by the court.
  3. The participation of a parent, guardian, or custodian in the development or the acceptance of a case plan shall not constitute an admission of dependency-neglect.

History. Acts 1997, No. 1227, § 8; 1999, No. 401, § 16; 2009, No. 956, § 27; 2011, No. 591, § 9.

Amendments. The 2009 amendment inserted (c)(1)(B) and redesignated the existing text of (c)(1) accordingly; added (c)(13) and (c)(14); and made related changes.

The 2011 amendment deleted the last two sentences of the former introductory paragraph of (a); deleted former (a)(1)(A) through (C); and redesignated former (a)(2)(A) through (C) as (a)(2) through (4); substituted “The case plan developed by the Department of Human Services under § 9-28-111 shall be” for “Developed and” in (a)(2); deleted former (a)(3) and (4); and deleted former (b) and (c) and redesignated former (d) and (e) as (b) and (c).

Case Notes

Record on Appeal.

In a termination of parental rights appeal, under Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 3-1 and 3-2, the “entire record” could be properly prepared and transmitted by the circuit clerk without including the case plan, even though the plan had in fact been filed in accordance with this section; it was the mother's burden to bring up an adequate record for review and, because the record omitted the case plan, the court could not review the mother's due process claim. Rodriguez v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 360 Ark. 180, 200 S.W.3d 431 (2004).

Cited: Jones v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 361 Ark. 164, 205 S.W.3d 778 (2005); Ramsey v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 1365, 377 S.W.3d 399 (2010).

Subchapter 5 — Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction

Effective Dates. Acts 2019, No. 910, § 6346(b): July 1, 2019. Emergency clause provided: “It is found and determined by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that this act revises the duties of certain state entities; that this act establishes new departments of the state; that these revisions impact the expenses and operations of state government; and that the sections of this act other than the two uncodified sections of this act preceding the emergency clause titled ‘Funding and classification of cabinet-level department secretaries’ and ‘Transformation and Efficiencies Act transition team’ should become effective at the beginning of the fiscal year to allow for implementation of the new provisions at the beginning of the fiscal year. Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist, and Sections 1 through 6343 of this act being necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety shall become effective on July 1, 2019.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2003–2010 · leading case: Rodriguez v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 200 S.W.3d 431 (Ark. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rodriguez v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 200 S.W.3d 431 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 8× “3 We accept petitions for review pursuant to Rule 2-4 of the Arkansas Rules of the Supreme Court.”
Jones v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 205 S.W.3d 778 (Ark. 2005). · cites it 2× “On a somewhat related point, Appellant claims that she was never included in the case plan preparation and never allowed the opportunity to participate in any of the DHS staffings that involve case plan development, and that she never signed a case plan prepared by DHS.”
Ramsey v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 377 S.W.3d 399 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Ark.Code Ann. § 9-27-402(a) (Repl.2009). The court’s June 19, 2009 adjudication and disposition order approves the case plan developed by DHS.”
Rodriguez v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 137 S.W.3d 432 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003). “2002), which provides that when a juvenile is receiving services in an out-of-home placement, the case plan must include at a minimum, “[t]he specific actions to be taken by the parent, guardian, or custodian of the juvenile to eliminate or correct the identified problems or…”
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-402(a): 1 case
Ramsey v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 377 S.W.3d 399 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010). “Ark.Code Ann. § 9-27-402(a) (Repl.2009). The court’s June 19, 2009 adjudication and disposition order approves the case plan developed by DHS.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-402(c)(5)(A): 1 case
Rodriguez v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 137 S.W.3d 432 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003). “2002), which provides that when a juvenile is receiving services in an out-of-home placement, the case plan must include at a minimum, “[t]he specific actions to be taken by the parent, guardian, or custodian of the juvenile to eliminate or correct the identified problems or…”
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.