Monica Contreras, Appellant v. Arkansas Department of Human Services; Christine Williams; and J — Danielson, J…

Summary

Justice Danielson, dissenting, would affirm the circuit court because the record did not leave him with a definite and firm conviction that the court clearly erred in finding that returning the child to his mother was not in the child's best interest. He reasoned that the statutory three-month return requirement may have made that permanency goal inappropriate, given the child's school stability and prior school changes. The dissent disagreed with the majority's reversal and remand for further consideration of the statutory permanency-goal provision.