Page:Canerday-Banks v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 523.pdf/30

 the August 11 letter was relevant in its determination of whether DHS unreasonably withheld consent for the Bartons to adopt the child.

There we have it: The forest or the trees? Are we too involved in the details to look at the situation as a whole? I cannot in good conscience and within my interpretation of legal jurisprudence affirm an award of custody of a minor child to a couple who have been disqualified by the State of Arkansas to serve as foster parents for maltreating foster children. I understand that DHS has its detractors; however, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the investigation by DHS into the Bartons' fitness as foster parents was inappropriate or not based on objective evidence. The majority extols the premise that the Bartons were investigated by the Arkansas State Police and that the Bartons' conduct did not rise to the level of criminality. However, the failure to have criminal charges pressed by the Arkansas State Police does not diminish nor detract from the fact that the Department of Human Services received legitimate complaints of child maltreatment from a third party against the Bartons, investigated the complaints including interviews with the Bartons, found the complaints of child maltreatment to be true, and determined that the Bartons should be disqualified to serve as foster parents. Having said that, I fully appreciate the fact that the Bartons have appealed their disqualification, and the Bartons are very much entitled to due process. Based on the evidence presented, I have the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made, and I would hold that the circuit court was clearly erroneous in finding that DHS unreasonably withheld consent for the Bartons to adopt