Case Title: Gullick v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-11-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
John GULLICK v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT of HUMAN
SERVICES

95-830                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered November 4, 1996


Parent & child -- child subject to serious physical abuse -- 
     sufficient emergency existed for removal of child from the
     home. -- Where a child had been subject to serious and
     frightening physical abuse, there was no question that the
     situation necessitating her removal constituted an emergency;
     the appellee's investigation occurred as the result of an
     emergency situation, the serious physical abuse of the child
     by her father; the first affirmative action taken by a state
     agency for the purpose of seeking a custody disposition
     occurred on the very day when it appeared that the child would
     be returned to her father's custody; under the circumstances,
     such a return to parental custody constituted an emergency
     under Ark. Code Ann.  9-27-328(b); the order of the chancery
     court, placing the child in appellee's custody, was affirmed. 
        


     Appeal from Washington Chancery Court; Charles N. Williams,
Chancellor; affirmed.
     Steven S. Zega, for appellant.
     Deborah C. Reagan, for appellee.

     Bradley D. Jesson, Chief Justice.
     This appeal is brought by John Gullick, the father of Angela
Gullick.  He appeals from two orders of the juvenile division of
chancery court.  The first order, entered April 17, 1995, placed
Angela in the custody of the Department of Human Services.  The
second order, entered April 24, 1995, denied Mr. Gullick's petition
for a writ of habeas corpus seeking Angela's return to parental
custody.  We affirm.
     Angela is the younger of two daughters of John and Shariee
Gullick.  The girls have lived with their father most of their
lives, their mother not having been present for many years.  The
older daughter, Julia, was voluntarily placed into foster care by
John Gullick in 1993.  In November of 1994, the Department of Human
Services began an investigation into allegations that Mr. Gullick
had physically abused Angela.  The investigation revealed that on
November 10, 1994, Angela, along with her stepmother Debbie Gullick
and Debbie's child Amanda, returned home from a meeting to find
John Gullick enraged and possibly intoxicated.  Mr. Gullick wrapped
a jacket around Angela's neck and tried to choke her.  Angela was
twelve years old at the time.  She is also blind.
     Debbie Gullick left the home the next day, taking both Amanda
and Angela with her to a women's shelter in Fayetteville.  Mrs.
Gullick found her own place in December and moved out of the
shelter.  During this period, she maintained physical custody of
Angela.  Divorce proceedings began between Debbie and John Gullick. 
During the course of those proceedings, John Gullick asked the
chancellor to return custody of Angela to him.  Debbie Gullick,
having no biological relation to Angela, was required by the
chancellor to return Angela to her father.  The chancellor made his
ruling on Wednesday, January 25, 1995.  That same day, the
Washington County prosecutor's office filed a Family In Need of
Services (FINS) petition in the juvenile division of chancery
court.  The petition called for a hearing the following Monday and
prayed that the court order disposition of the care, custody and
control of Angela.  By amended petition on January 27, the
prosecutor incorporated the affidavit of Debbie Gullick, which
described the November 10 incident.
     After a request for a continuance by John Gullick, the hearing
was held on Thursday, February 2, 1995.  The prosecutor offered
substantial evidence that John Gullick wrapped a jacket around
Angela's neck and tried to choke her on November 10.  There was
also evidence that John Gullick had an alcohol-dependency problem,
had threatened witnesses regarding their testimony, and had
attempted suicide.  Finally, Ms. Weller, a child advocate at the
Fayetteville women's shelter, testified that Angela had told her
that she would run away if sent back to her father and that she
would rather kill herself than be returned to his custody.
     At the close of the hearing, the prosecutor and the guardian
ad litem recommended that Angela be placed in foster care.  The
prosecutor told the court that she was most concerned about
Angela's immediate safety and that she considered the situation an
emergency.  The judge declared that he wanted to put Angela in a
safe place and was especially mindful of Angela's statements that
she might run away or kill herself if returned to her father's
custody.  He ordered Angela placed into the custody of the
Department of Human Services and ordered the preparation of a case
plan with an eye toward reunification of the family.  
     The court's ruling was memorialized in an order entered April
17, 1994.  In the interim between the hearing and the entry of the
order, John Gullick filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 
In the petition, he claimed that the court was required by Ark.
Code Ann.  9-27-328 (Repl. 1993) to make specific findings before
removing a child from a parent's custody and that, in the absence
of such findings, custody of Angela should be returned to him.  The
court denied the petition by order entered April 24, 1995. 
     On appeal, John Gullick argues that a juvenile court cannot
deprive him of the custody of his child unless the court takes the
steps and makes the findings mandated by  9-27-328(a).   That
statute, as it appeared on February 2, 1995, read as follows:
     Before a juvenile may be removed from the parent,
     guardian, or custodian of the juvenile by order of a
     juvenile court, excluding commitments to youth services
     centers, the court shall order family services
     appropriate to prevent removal or to reunify the family
     and, in its orders, make these specific findings:

     (1) Whether removal of the juvenile is necessary to
     protect the juvenile, and the reasons therefor;

     (2) Which family services were made available to the
     family before removal of the juvenile;

     (3) What efforts were made to provide those family
     services relevant to the needs of the family before the
     removal of the juvenile;

     (4) Why efforts made to provide the family services
     described did not prevent removal of the juvenile; and

     (5) Whether efforts made to prevent removal of the
     juvenile were reasonable, based upon the needs of the
     family and the juvenile.
     These findings are not to be viewed as mere formalities.  
Congress requires that, before a state may be eligible for federal
matching funds, the removal of a child from the home must be the
result of a judicial determination that "reasonable efforts"  were
made, prior to the placement of a child in foster care, to prevent
or eliminate the need for removal of the child from the home and to
make it possible for the child to return to his home.  See 42
U.S.C.  671(a)(15) and  672(a)(1).  Public Law 96-272, popularly
known as the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, 42
U.S.C.  670 - 676 (1985 and Supp. 1996), was passed by the
Congress for the purpose of shifting emphasis in federal programs
toward preventive services to allow children to remain safely at
home rather than being placed in foster care.  See generally In
Interest of S.A.D., 382 Pa. Super. 166,