The Tennessee Court of Appeals addressed the termination of a father's parental rights concerning four children removed from his home due to neglect and abuse. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (DCS) initiated termination proceedings after three years of involvement with the family, citing grounds of abandonment due to the father's failure to provide a suitable home, substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan, and persistent conditions. The court found no abandonment regarding failure to support. The father appealed the termination grounds and best interest determination. The appellate court reversed the trial court's finding on abandonment by failure to support but affirmed the other grounds, thus upholding the termination of parental rights.
The case stems from over ten years of DCS involvement, beginning in 2000 when both parents lived together. The family faced multiple DCS referrals for various forms of neglect and abuse. Despite DCS providing support services for parenting and household management, the father's cooperation was minimal, and conditions in the home deteriorated. By October 2008, a DCS visit revealed the home in 'deplorable' condition, with unsafe living conditions, severe neglect of the children, and inadequate hygiene. The children, aged 9, 6, 5, and 4, exhibited poor hygiene and unsafe living practices, highlighting the severe neglect they experienced.
A child informed a DCS investigator about assisting their Father in planting illicit marijuana plants under their house, which were later taken by Father’s associates. Consequently, the children were placed in protective custody, and Father was incarcerated for drug-related offenses. During a preliminary hearing on October 22, 2008, both parents attended, and a guardian ad litem was appointed for the children. Father was granted therapeutic visitation rights.
In February 2009, the Juvenile Court adjudicated the children as dependent and neglected, noting that DCS had provided various services, including parenting assessments and drug testing. Father was ordered to pay $496 monthly in child support, which was garnished from his unemployment or paycheck.
In July 2010, the children were temporarily returned to Mother’s custody, leading to a significant incident where one daughter was sexually abused by an older brother, an individual not involved in the current case. Mother was aware of the abuse and failed to protect her daughter. The children were subsequently placed back into foster care, and a new permanency plan was initiated.
In February 2011, the Juvenile Court reaffirmed the children’s status as dependent and neglected, with Father admitting to this finding. The court determined that Mother’s failure to protect her daughter constituted severe abuse. Father expressed a desire to hire private counsel but ultimately accepted appointed representation after changing his mind multiple times.
Father moved to Texas in February 2011, despite DCS warning him about the challenges of receiving services and visiting his children from another state. After relocating, he lived in a two-bedroom trailer with his new wife and her daughter. DCS attempted to obtain assistance for him in Texas, but Father did not engage with those services. He failed to complete required counseling and parenting assessments under Tennessee’s permanency plan and stopped paying child support, with no visits to Tennessee to see his children. A new permanency plan was established in March 2011, mandating continued child support payments and compliance with counseling recommendations, none of which Father accomplished by the expected achievement date of September 2011.
In May 2011, the Department of Children's Services (DCS) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of both Mother and Father on several grounds, including abandonment due to failure to support and provide a suitable home, substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, and persistent conditions. A hearing was held on September 8, 2011, which both parents did not attend. The Juvenile Court issued an order terminating their rights on September 20, 2011. However, Father sent a letter to the court on September 19, claiming he was not notified of the hearing and requested the decision be set aside. On November 8, 2011, the court set aside the termination regarding Father only, scheduling a second hearing for January 19, 2012.
At this hearing, Daughter D.C., aged eight, expressed her desire not to live with Father, recounting incidents of sexual abuse by him and neglect by both parents. DCS presented Father as a witness, who acknowledged his long history with DCS yet attributed the issues to Mother. His testimony revealed conditions in his home, including the presence of pests, and he admitted to being high and neglecting to take his children to school. Father, unemployed for over a year, stated that a church occasionally assisted him. He recognized his responsibilities under the permanency plan, which included mental health intake and securing employment and housing, but he criticized the counseling he received and admitted to positive drug tests for marijuana. Despite some therapeutic visitation and parenting assistance being provided by DCS, Father did not submit required assessments and expressed disdain for the mental health recommendations. He denied any sexual abuse of his daughter.
Father acknowledged he had not paid child support since relocating to Texas, stating he could manage personal bills but lacked funds for child support. He receives food stamps and is self-employed, having acquired a two-bedroom trailer for himself, his wife, and stepdaughter. He conceded that the trailer was not suitable for the custody of his four children and expressed the need for three to four months to secure adequate housing if custody were granted.
Lori Powers, the family support counselor, testified about her four years of work with Father and his family, focusing on parenting skills, anger management, budgeting, and homemaking. She conducted 26 therapeutic supervised visits to foster bonding between Father and his children. Powers observed concerning behaviors during these visits, noting that unfamiliar individuals often visited Father’s home, leading her to suspect drug-related activity. Children were informed they could contact their DCS case worker to decline visits, which they did on several occasions. A secret signal was established for children to use if they felt threatened, which was utilized multiple times, particularly by Daughter D.C., who expressed fear of Father and recounted memories of inappropriate touching.
Powers reported the poor condition of Father’s home, describing it as "dirty" and "nasty." Despite receiving help from church members for cleaning, the home remained in disarray, with Father often making excuses and not taking responsibility. After three and a half years of working with the family, Powers felt uncomfortable with the idea of returning the children to Father’s care. Vanessa Harrison, the DCS case manager, corroborated Powers' concerns, noting her limited communication with Father and detailing the family's responsibilities discussed in team meetings.
Harrison testified about her ongoing efforts to encourage Father to meet requirements for regaining custody of his children over the past three years. She stated that Father never informed her of completing the mandated alcohol and drug assessment and only participated superficially in a parenting assessment which recommended further mental health treatment. After attending only two counseling sessions, Father ceased participation, citing financial constraints. Despite Harrison finding a free counseling service, Father did not attend.
Harrison noted that the Department of Children’s Services (DCS) provided substantial support, including approximately $18,000 for rent, utilities, gas cards, a parenting assessment, and therapeutic visitation services. However, DCS did not assist with cleaning Father's home as he did not request such help, claiming assistance from his church. Harrison believed the living conditions were unsuitable for the children, even with church support.
Father moved to Texas despite being informed that DCS could not assist him out of state, and he reportedly did not follow up with Texas children's services after Harrison alerted them to his arrival. Throughout the process, Harrison felt both she and DCS made significant efforts to help Father regain custody, but he showed minimal progress, often blaming others for his situation.
Harrison provided updates on the children's well-being in foster homes, noting improvements in their social interactions, academic performance, and involvement in extracurricular activities. However, they were also receiving counseling and multiple psychotropic medications for emotional issues. After the hearing, the Juvenile Court took the case under advisement and subsequently issued an order on March 21, 2012, terminating Father's parental rights due to abandonment for failing to provide a suitable home, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and persistent conditions, although it did not find abandonment due to failure to support, as Father had made minimal support payments in the months leading up to the termination petition.
The trial court determined that terminating Father's parental rights was in the children's best interest, supported by clear and convincing evidence. Father is appealing this decision and has raised four issues:
1. Whether there is evidence that he abandoned the children under Tennessee law.
2. Whether evidence supports the finding of substantial noncompliance with court orders.
3. Whether he failed to address the conditions leading to the children's removal, preventing reunification.
4. Whether termination of his parental rights was indeed in the children's best interest.
The State also seeks review of the Juvenile Court's conclusion regarding Father's failure to provide a suitable home, which was not raised by Father on appeal but was ruled in favor of the State.
Termination proceedings in Tennessee require proof of at least one statutory ground for termination and evidence that such termination aligns with the child's best interest, both established by clear and convincing evidence. This higher standard aims to mitigate the risk of wrongful termination of parental rights, given the severe consequences involved. A clear and convincing standard means the facts must be deemed highly probable, providing a firm belief in their truth.
Clear and convincing evidence is required to establish the truth of facts asserted in legal proceedings, demonstrating that the truth is "highly probable." When reviewing a trial court's findings, appellate courts must distinguish between specific facts and their combined weight. Deference is given to a trial court's credibility assessments of witnesses. The appellate review under Tennessee Rule 13(d) begins by confirming the trial court's factual findings, which are presumed correct unless evidence suggests otherwise. The appellate court then assesses if the totality of facts supports the clear and convincing standard for terminating parental rights. The trial court’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, without presumption of correctness.
A biological parent's right to custody is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Constitution, though it is not absolute. This right remains intact unless relinquished, abandoned, or limited due to misconduct. In the case at hand, the father appeals the juvenile court decision on various grounds but does not contest the abandonment claim for failure to provide a suitable home. He argues that the Department of Children’s Services (DCS) did not make reasonable efforts to help him regain custody, which is addressed first, followed by a review of each ground for the juvenile court's decision. The issue of abandonment by failure to support is addressed despite the juvenile court ruling in the father's favor, along with the abandonment claim raised by DCS despite the father's lack of appeal on that ground.
Father alleges that the Department of Children’s Services (DCS) did not make reasonable efforts to help him reunify with his four children. He cites DCS case worker Harrison's testimony, which indicated that DCS neither assisted him in cleaning and fixing his home nor confirmed whether he obtained the required alcohol and drug assessment under the permanency plan. According to Tennessee law, DCS must demonstrate reasonable efforts to reunite families when a child is removed from the home, as outlined in Tennessee Code Annotated § 37-1-166 and further clarified in case law. Reasonable efforts are defined as the department's diligent efforts to meet the needs of the child and family, prioritizing the child's health and safety.
The assessment of DCS’s efforts is case-specific, and the reunification process is described as a "two-way street," where parents must also work toward rehabilitation. A recent amendment to Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-102 states that DCS's efforts may be deemed reasonable if they exceed those of the parent, particularly when the parent is aware of the child's custody status. The Juvenile Court found that DCS did make reasonable efforts to assist Father, based on extensive testimony from case workers detailing the services provided. Conversely, the court concluded that Father did not utilize these services, failed to create a suitable home for his children, and exhibited a lack of concern for their well-being. Additionally, Father knowingly chose to relocate to Texas, despite DCS's inability to provide services outside of Tennessee. The Juvenile Court's findings are well-supported by the evidence on record.
Harrison reported providing over $18,000 in services to Father, including extensive therapeutic visits aimed at fostering a healthy relationship between him and his four children. However, Powers, the therapist, found Father unresponsive, ultimately teaching the children self-care skills instead. Although free counseling was arranged for Father, he participated minimally and dismissed it as 'ridiculous.' On appeal, Father highlighted a lack of assistance from DCS in cleaning his home; however, he acknowledged receiving help from his church, which failed to address ongoing safety hazards. Evidence indicated that after church members cleaned, the home quickly reverted to unsanitary conditions, and Father did not demonstrate significant efforts to improve its habitability.
The record supports the Juvenile Court's conclusion that DCS made reasonable efforts to assist Father, despite his tendency to shift blame for his situation. Father claimed compliance with the permanency plan, citing his communication with Vanessa Harrison and alleged improvements to his Tennessee home. However, Harrison did not verify the appropriateness of his Texas residence. The Juvenile Court found that the tasks outlined in the permanency plan were relevant to addressing the conditions leading to the children's removal, and Father did not substantially comply with these responsibilities.
Under Tennessee law, a plan of care for foster children must specify the responsibilities of both the parent and the agency, with substantial noncompliance being grounds for termination of parental rights. The trial court is required to ensure that the plan's requirements are reasonable and related to the initial removal conditions, and to evaluate both the degree of noncompliance and the importance of each requirement.
Substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan is assessed de novo, with no presumption of correctness. The Father did not contest the reasonableness of his assigned responsibilities, which included undergoing a drug assessment, participating in mental health services, maintaining stable employment, and securing appropriate housing. Although he underwent an alcohol and drug assessment as a probation condition, he did not share the results with the Department of Children's Services (DCS) and dismissed the need for treatment, despite acknowledging significant drug issues. His drug tests included at least two positive results for marijuana, and he refused a required drug test, indicating a lack of serious commitment to the substance-related requirements.
Regarding mental health, his participation in counseling was deemed superficial, with the Father expressing disdain for the process and ultimately discontinuing attendance despite DCS providing free services. His mental health needs were thus unmet. Employment records showed he fluctuated between unemployment and low-paying jobs, with child support being garnished from his income, yet he currently states he is self-employed but earns insufficient income to support his biological children, opting instead to provide for his wife and stepdaughter.
The condition of his living environment fluctuated; while it temporarily improved with church assistance, it soon deteriorated again to unsafe levels as affirmed by a DCS case worker. The Juvenile Court found substantial noncompliance with all aspects of the permanency plan.
Father acknowledges that his two-bedroom trailer in Texas is inadequate for himself, his new wife, his stepdaughter, and his four children. The Juvenile Court found substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, supported by clear and convincing evidence. The court also determined that the grounds for termination of parental rights, specifically "persistent conditions," were met, as defined by Tennessee law. This includes conditions that led to the children's removal persisting and being unlikely to be remedied in the near future, thus jeopardizing the children's chances of a stable, permanent home.
Father contends that the issues of environmental neglect and drug exposure leading to the children's removal were resolved by November 2010, citing his compliance with services, visitation, resolution of legal issues, and home improvements. He argues that the Department of Children's Services (DCS) did not demonstrate reasonable diligence in providing necessary services to help him address the persistent conditions.
The court emphasizes the legislative intent behind the statutory framework, which aims to protect children from prolonged foster care and ensure their placement in a permanent home if early reunification is not possible. The children were removed from Father’s custody in 2008, and DCS had been involved with the family for several years prior to this action.
Father's appeal regarding the Department of Children's Services' (DCS) efforts to assist him has been rejected. DCS provided services, but Father failed to address the conditions that led to the removal of his children. He was advised to undergo an alcohol and drug assessment but denied having a problem, thus avoiding treatment. His ongoing mental health issues resulted in neglectful and abusive living conditions for the children, which remain unresolved. Although he works in Texas and supports his wife and stepdaughter, he claims insufficient income to pay child support for his biological children and lacks suitable housing for them, requesting more time to secure it. The court determined that persistent conditions justified the children's continued removal, affirming that clear and convincing evidence supported this conclusion.
Regarding abandonment due to failure to support, Tennessee law allows termination of parental rights if a parent willfully fails to provide support. The Juvenile Court found that while Father made minimal payments totaling $452 in the four months prior to the petition to terminate his parental rights, this amount was insufficient. Since moving to Texas in February 2011, he has not paid any child support. The court noted that prior to his move, support was being garnished from his earnings, albeit below the required amount. The court concluded that while minimal support was paid, it did not constitute willful abandonment under the relevant statutes.
The appellate record indicates that the father made minimal child support payments during the four months prior to the termination petition, totaling $41.75, with individual payments of $1.88, $22.89, $10.19, and $6.79. This amount contradicts the Juvenile Court's finding that he paid $452 in that period. The evidence supports the conclusion that these payments constitute "token support," as defined by Tennessee law, given the father's financial circumstances. Despite his limited income, the father's total support for four children is deemed insufficient. Further, he admitted to ceasing child support payments after relocating to Texas, redirecting funds to support his new family instead. Consequently, the court finds he abandoned his children by failing to provide adequate support, warranting a reversal of the Juvenile Court's decision regarding the termination of his parental rights.
Additionally, the Juvenile Court found that Father abandoned his children by failing to provide a suitable home, a conclusion he did not contest on appeal. The definition of abandonment includes circumstances in which a child has been removed from a parent's home due to neglect, and the parent fails to make reasonable efforts to establish a suitable living environment despite assistance from the department. The department's efforts to help the parent are considered reasonable if they exceed those of the parent.
The Juvenile Court determined that the Department of Children's Services (DCS) exerted reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the children from Father's home and continued to do so for four months post-removal. In contrast, Father failed to demonstrate reasonable efforts in providing a suitable home and exhibited a significant lack of concern for the children, leading the court to conclude that he would not be able to provide an appropriate living situation in the near future. Evidence indicated that DCS provided substantial assistance to Father, such as support with rent, utility bills, and gas cards. Testimony revealed that Father did not seek help for his home conditions, claiming to receive assistance from his church. Despite efforts by church members to clean his home, it remained unsuitable for the children. Father's Texas trailer, already occupied by himself, his wife, and her child, was also inadequate for housing five children. He acknowledged he never intended for the trailer to accommodate his four children, instead promising to find suitable housing if awarded custody. This behavior constituted clear and convincing evidence of abandonment due to failure to provide a suitable home. Consequently, the court affirmed the decision to terminate Father's parental rights.
Upon establishing a ground for termination, the court must evaluate if such termination is in the children's best interest, considering various factors outlined in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(i). These factors include whether the parent has made necessary adjustments to ensure safety and well-being in the home, the parent's ability to maintain lasting adjustments after DCS's interventions, regular visitation, the establishment of a meaningful relationship with the child, and the potential impact of changing caretakers and environments on the child's emotional and psychological well-being.
Factors considered for terminating parental rights include any demonstrated abuse or neglect by the parent or guardian, the safety and health of the living environment, and the parent's substance use or criminal activity. The trial court must evaluate each factor to determine if termination is in the child's best interest. In this case, the father failed to show any improvement in his circumstances, was uncooperative with support services, lacked stable housing, and ceased child support payments. His relationship with the children is non-existent, as they have lived apart for four years and exhibited signs of discomfort during supervised visits. Testimonies revealed that at least one child expressed a desire to sever ties with him due to past abuse. The children have thrived in protective custody, receiving counseling and medication for their emotional well-being. Consequently, overwhelming evidence supports the Juvenile Court's conclusion that terminating the father's parental rights serves the best interest of the children. The trial court's decision is partially reversed and partially affirmed, with costs assessed against the appellant.
