Lexus Tadlock v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children

── Lexus Tadlock v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: April 29, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 272 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CV-25-624 Opinion Delivered April 29, 2026 LEXUS TADLOCK APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE MILLER COUNTY V. CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 46JV-23-101] ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR CHILDREN HONORABLE CARLTON D. JONES, APPELLEES JUDGE AFFIRMED WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge Appellant Lexus Tadlock appeals from the order of the Miller County Circuit Court terminating her parental rights to her sons, MC1 and MC2. On appeal, Tadlock challenges the circuit court’s finding that termination was in the juveniles’ best interest. We affirm. On March 22, 2023, an investigation was initiated on the basis of neglect due to inadequate supervision. MC1 was found on the side of the highway, alone, crying, and dirty after he wandered off from the home of a relative where Tadlock had left him. The Arkansas Department of Human Services (“DHS”) took physical possession of MC1 and proceeded to Tadlock’s residence. Tadlock refused DHS entry into the home; however, during the investigation, it was learned that the home had no running water, electricity, or food. On the basis of environmental neglect, a protective- services case was opened. An aunt, Heather Kuykendall, agreed to permit MC1 and MC2 to reside in her home until Tadlock cured the issues with her residence.  On August 8, Kuykendall brought MC1 and MC2 to the DHS office and informed DHS that she could no longer care for the juveniles, and she had no knowledge of Tadlock’s whereabouts. Tadlock presented herself to DHS that same day and confirmed that she lacked stable housing, employment, and a valid driver’s license. Tadlock tested positive for methamphetamine and admitted to recent marijuana use. DHS exercised a seventy-two-hour hold on the juveniles and removed them from Tadlock’s custody because her circumstances presented an immediate danger to the health or physical well- being of the juveniles. The following safety threats were identified and considered in making the decision to remove the juveniles: Tadlock does not meet the children’s immediate needs for supervision, food, and clothing; and Tadlock’s substance misuse seriously impairs her ability to supervise, protect, or care for the children. DHS filed a petition for dependency-neglect on August 11 alleging that MC1 and MC2 were dependent-neglected as a result of neglect and/or parental unfitness. An ex parte order for emergency custody was entered on August 14 placing the juveniles in DHS’s custody and finding that removal from Tadlock’s custody was in their best interest and necessary to protect their health and safety. An agreed adjudication order was entered on August 22. The order noted that Tadlock waived the probable-cause hearing and agreed to adjudication. The juveniles were adjudicated dependent-neglected on the basis of neglect and parental unfitness and were ordered to remain in DHS custody. The court found that the safety concerns that prevent trial placement, return of custody, or other placement with Tadlock include her substance abuse, which negatively affects her ability to care for the juveniles, and her inability or unwillingness to provide for the health and safety 2 needs of the juveniles evidenced by the failure of services to prevent removal of the juveniles during the protective-services case. The goal of the case was established as reunification