The Arkansas Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court’s decision to terminate the parental rights of Madalene Benavides. The ruling centers on Benavides’s appeal, which argued that the Lonoke County Circuit Court abused its discretion by denying her request for a postponement of the termination hearing.
The Background of the Case
The case began on July 22, 2021, when the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) filed a petition for emergency custody of Benavides’s minor child (MC), born August 2, 2019. The DHS cited environmental issues in the home and concerns about Benavides’s mental state as reasons for removing MC from the home. The court granted the petition.
Following an adjudication hearing on September 22, 2021, the court found MC to be dependent-neglected due to environmental neglect. Benavides was ordered to complete a case plan, including abstaining from drugs, undergoing drug screenings and treatment, participating in parenting classes, attending counseling, and maintaining stable housing and income.
Over the next few years, the case evolved through multiple review hearings. While the initial goal was reunification, the court found Benavides was making some progress but also struggled. In December 2022, unsupervised weekend visitations were authorized. However, on January 4, 2024, DHS filed for an emergency change of custody after Benavides was involved in a car accident while driving under the influence with MC in the vehicle.
A subsequent adjudication hearing on April 29, 2024, found MC dependent-neglected due to parental substance abuse. The court again ordered Benavides to follow a case plan. However, a permanency-planning hearing on October 2, 2024, led the court to change the case goal to adoption, citing Benavides’s lack of significant progress and inability to provide a safe home for her child.
The Termination Hearing and Appeal
DHS and the attorney for the child then filed a petition to terminate Benavides’s parental rights. A termination hearing was scheduled for January 9, 2025, but was postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing was held on January 16, 2025.
At the start of the hearing, Benavides’s attorney requested a postponement because Benavides was not present. The attorney explained that Benavides believed DHS would provide transportation, but she had not actually requested it. The court denied the motion, noting that Benavides had received transportation in the past and knew she needed to request it.
During the hearing, testimony from DHS caseworkers and an adoption specialist revealed a history of drug use, mental health concerns, and difficulties with visitation. The court found that Benavides had not made sufficient progress and that termination of parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The court specifically cited the child’s need for stability and permanency, his thriving in foster care, and the availability of adoptive families. The court granted the petition, and the case goal became adoption.
Benavides appealed the decision, arguing that the court abused its discretion by denying her request for a continuance. She claimed she was prejudiced by not being able to attend and defend against the allegations. However, she did not challenge the evidence supporting the termination grounds or the determination that termination was in the child’s best interest.
The Court’s Decision
The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court explained that a continuance should only be granted with a showing of good cause. The appellate court found that Benavides had not demonstrated good cause. She had not been diligent in arranging transportation, and her attorney admitted she did not request it.
The court also found that Benavides failed to show prejudice. She did not explain what defense she would have presented had she been at the hearing, nor did she show how the outcome would have changed. The court emphasized that Benavides had a history of substance abuse, mental health issues, and an inability to provide a safe home. Because she did not challenge the grounds for termination or the best interest determination, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying the continuance.