Page:Canerday-Banks v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 523.pdf/25

 maltreatment allegations as a basis for withholding consent, it was well within the purview of the circuit court to evaluate the credibility and veracity of those allegations and determine whether DHS's reliance on them was reasonable. Newkirk, 2015 Ark. App. 186, at 8–9, 486 S.W.3d at 832–33. DHS provided no testimony, evidence, or explanation as to why it chose to believe the maltreatment allegations over the Bartons' denials. Rebecca Barton testified at length about the allegations, explained the context, denied any acts of maltreatment, and testified that the state police had found that the claims were unsubstantiated. The Bartons also rebutted the allegations with the testimony of friends, preschool teachers, and their oldest daughter, all of whom assured the court that the Bartons are great parents who deeply love P.S. Finally, and most tellingly, the CASA advocate's report acknowledged the maltreatment allegations but recommended that P.S. be adopted by the Bartons despite those allegations. The report revealed that the CASA had far more serious concerns about the risk that the Bankses' might allow P.S.'s biological parents to have contact with her. Given these facts, we reject the dissent's argument that the mere existence of maltreatment allegations automatically rendered DHS's decision to withhold consent reasonable in this case. DHS never asserted that its decision to withhold consent was based on the maltreatment allegation. Even if it had, the circuit court was entitled to judge the credibility and seriousness of those allegations. Based on the record before us, we conclude that the circuit court's finding that DHS unreasonably withheld consent was not clearly erroneous.