Matthews v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.

2015 Ark. App. 359
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
DecidedJune 3, 2015
DocketCV-15-122
StatusPublished

This text of 2015 Ark. App. 359 (Matthews v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matthews v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 359 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 359

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CV-15-122

BECKY MATTHEWS Opinion Delivered June 3, 2015 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE MADISON V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. J-14-62]

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HONORABLE STACEY HUMAN SERVICES AND MINOR ZIMMERMAN, JUDGE CHILD APPELLEES AFFIRMED

RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge

Becky Matthews appeals the Madison County Circuit Court order adjudicating her

infant daughter, A.M., dependent-neglected under the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”).

On appeal, Matthews argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the circuit court’s

finding. We affirm.

On September 14, 2014, Matthews gave birth to A.M. in Bentonville, Arkansas. At

birth, A.M. weighed 5 pounds 6 ounces. On September 18, 2014, Matthews took A.M. to

see Dr. Jeffrey Savage for a routine check-up at Harvey Pediatrics Clinic. Dr. Savage noted

that since her birth, A.M.’s weight had dropped to 4 pounds 13 ounces. Matthews reported

to Dr. Savage that A.M. was having difficulty feeding and that she thought she may be

“tongue tied.” Dr. Savage observed that A.M. had a short lingual frenulum, so he cut

approximately two millimeters of her lingual frenulum. After the procedure, A.M.’s tongue

protrusion improved. He scheduled a weight check for September 22, 2014. Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 359

On that date, Dr. Savage observed that A.M.’s weight remained unchanged. Matthews

reported to Dr. Savage that A.M. was refusing her breast and that A.M. would fall asleep after

feeding for five minutes. She further reported that her first child, R.H., was also very small

for her age and had difficulty feeding.1 A nurse counseled Matthews on ways to stimulate

A.M. during feeding and gave her a syringe to “finger feed.”

On September 25, 2014, Matthews returned to the clinic. She did not see Dr. Savage

but informed the medical professional that she continued to experience breast-feeding

problems and also noticed white spots on A.M.’s lips and inside her mouth. She also reported

that she tried to mix formula with breast milk to help A.M. gain weight. A.M. was diagnosed

with thrush and was prescribed Nystatin.

On September 26, 2014, Matthews returned to the clinic with A.M. for a weight

check with Dr. Savage. Dr. Savage noted that A.M.’s weight had increased to 4 pounds 14

ounces. He noted that A.M. was still thin but was otherwise active. Matthews reported to Dr.

Savage that she continued to have difficulty breast feeding A.M. and that A.M. had begun

spitting up after feeding.

On October 1, 2014, Dr. Savage saw A.M. again. He observed that her weight had

decreased to 4 pounds 13 ounces. Because A.M. continued to lose weight, Dr. Savage

diagnosed A.M. with failure to thrive and admitted her into the intensive care unit (“ICU”).

He implemented a feeding schedule, which required Matthews to feed A.M. every three

hours, and asked the nursing staff to monitor A.M.’s calorie intake and to observe Matthews’s

1 Sometime after R.H.’s birth, Matthews gave custody of the child to a family friend.

2 Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 359

interactions with A.M. Dr. Savage shared his plan with Dr. Bryan Harvey, the on-call

physician.

On October 3, 2014, after Dr. Harvey and a medical team had observed A.M. and

Matthews for nearly three days, Dr. Harvey determined that A.M. suffered from nutritional

neglect due to Matthews’s inability to properly feed A.M. He contacted the Arkansas

Department of Human Services (“DHS”), and DHS petitioned for emergency custody of

A.M. The circuit court held a probable-cause hearing, where it was determined that

Matthews and A.M. were members of the Cherokee Nation. Thus, the court found the

proceedings were governed by the ICWA. The court also found that probable cause existed

for the emergency custody and set an adjudication hearing for November 7, 2014.

At the hearing, Dr. Harvey testified over the telephone that he supervised A.M.’s

hospitalization. He stated that A.M. was significantly malnourished when she was admitted

to the ICU. He testified that in the ICU, a medical team observed Matthews and A.M. during

feedings and documented A.M.’s calorie intake. He testified that A.M. experienced no

medical illnesses, but she suffered from calorie deficiency as a result of Matthews not properly

feeding her. He stated that he made this diagnosis based on the hospital staff’s observations of

Matthews’s inattentiveness to A.M.’s needs. Specifically, Dr. Harvey testified that they had

to wake Matthews to feed A.M. and that Matthews gave A.M. the wrong volume of milk.

He also testified that Matthews appeared very lethargic. He stated that he and the medical

team tried to work with Matthews, but she did not respond to the help. He testified that the

nursing staff eventually assumed care for A.M., and once the nursing staff took over, A.M.

3 Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 359

began to gain weight. Dr. Harvey testified that once A.M. received the appropriate nutrition,

her head circumference increased from the tenth percentile to the twenty-sixth percentile. He

explained that malnutrition affects a baby’s brain growth, and if an infant suffers six weeks of

malnutrition, her brain growth will stop. He testified that he called DHS after diagnosing

A.M. with calorie neglect because he believed that A.M.’s development would be hindered

if she was returned to Matthews’s custody. He noted that Matthews had a genuine attachment

to A.M., but he did not believe Matthews was capable of providing the round-the-clock care

an infant needed.

Antoinette Johnson, the DHS family-service worker assigned to A.M.’s case, testified

that a medical official at Northwest Medical Hospital in Bentonville reported to DHS that

A.M. had been diagnosed with failure to thrive and that the hospital had concerns about the

infant returning to her mother’s custody. She stated that after receiving the call, she went to

the hospital and met with Matthews. She testified that she believed Matthews needed

psychological services and that A.M. should not return to Matthews’s care. Johnson testified

that she thought Matthews looked for medical problems with A.M., which she found

extremely concerning.

Nicole Allison, a child-welfare specialist with the Cherokee Nation, testified that she

believed that the return of A.M. to the custody of Matthews would result in serious emotional

or physical damage to the child. She also testified that no tribal foster homes were available

for A.M., but the tribe believed that A.M. should be placed with the family where her sister,

R.H., currently lived. She further agreed that DHS made active efforts to prevent A.M.’s

4 Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 359

removal from Matthews.

Matthews also testified at the hearing. She testified that she currently lived with a friend

in an apartment. She stated that she has bipolar disorder but does not take medication, noting

that her doctor took her off her medication during her pregnancy. She disagreed with Dr.

Harvey that the nurses had to awaken her to feed A.M. She also denied that the medical team

advised her how to feed A.M. She further testified that she believed that Dr. Harvey and the

medical team’s feeding instructions caused A.M.’s weight problems.

During final statements, Matthews asked the circuit court not to find A.M. dependent-

neglected. Specifically, Matthews’s attorney stated that

Ms.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Callison v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2014 Ark. App. 592 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2014)
Ingle v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2014 Ark. 471 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2014)
Mosher v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
2015 Ark. App. 111 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2015 Ark. App. 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-ark-dept-of-human-servs-arkctapp-2015.