The Court of Appeals of Tennessee upheld the termination of parental rights for both Brenda M. (Mother) and Stephen M. (Father) regarding their three children: Pauline M., Stephen M., and Rachel M. The trial court found grounds for termination based on abandonment due to failure to provide a suitable home and persistence of conditions as outlined in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 36-1-102(1)(A)(ii) and 36-1-113(g)(3). Additionally, Father’s rights were terminated for abandonment due to failure to support (Tenn. Code Ann. 36-1-102(1)(A)(i)), while Mother’s rights were terminated due to mental incompetence (Tenn. Code Ann. 36-1-113(g)(8)(B)). The court determined that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting these grounds and that the termination was in the best interests of the children.
The background reveals that DCS intervened after discovering the family living in unsanitary conditions, leading to their removal into protective custody on November 6, 2007. The court mandated that both parents undergo mental health evaluations and parenting assessments while providing supervised visitation opportunities. DCS worked with the parents to offer necessary services, including counseling, parenting classes, and employment assistance for Father. Psychological evaluations indicated that Father needed therapy for depression and substance issues, while Mother was found to have limited cognitive abilities, necessitating specialized parenting education.
DCS provided the parents with assistance for renting a home, but the property they chose was in poor condition, lacking heat and having broken windows and holes in the floors. Ms. Shepard, who assessed the home's suitability, advised against the move, yet the parents proceeded. To help them during winter, DCS supplied heaters in January 2008. Before the children were removed, the family received support from the HUGS program, where a nurse visited monthly to address the children's health needs. Starting in March 2008, Options for Families in Need, LLC assisted the parents in developing domestic skills and provided supervised visitations to reinforce parenting techniques. This program was later replaced by Compass Care Alliance, LLC, which offered similar services. Despite these efforts, the parents faced ongoing challenges; the father struggled to maintain stable employment, and the mother was unable to work due to cognitive limitations. After moving to a trailer park, the parents’ new mobile home began to deteriorate, and pest issues were noted. During a May 2008 visitation, the father displayed inappropriate behavior with his newborn daughter, and in August, the oldest daughter accused him of inappropriate touching, leading DCS to label him a sexual abuse perpetrator. Subsequently, a juvenile court issued a no contact order against him, which he did not contest. Following this, the father moved in with relatives, while the mother relocated to a better-condition mobile home nearby. Assessments by Compass Care revealed the father had a high intelligence level but an anti-social personality, showing little improvement in parenting skills despite interventions. Recommendations included securing full-time employment, intensive counseling for his anti-social behavior, and a psychosexual evaluation to assess risks to children. Compass Care also suggested considering termination of parental rights if no progress was achieved despite ongoing services.
Mother's evaluation revealed potential cognitive impairment, inadequate parenting skills, inability to create a safe environment, poor personal hygiene awareness, and a history of neglect. Compass Care advised termination of parental rights due to the lack of improvement in Mother's skills, suggesting in-home training for parenting and homemaking if services continued. On July 16, 2008, all three children were adjudicated as dependent and neglected. DCS filed a termination petition on March 5, 2009, citing abandonment through failure to support and provide a suitable home, persistence of conditions leading to removal, and Mother's mental incompetence. A trial occurred in Greene County Juvenile Court where both parents were represented by counsel, and a guardian ad litem represented the children. The court issued an order on November 19, 2009, terminating both parents' rights based on abandonment and persistent conditions, with Mother's rights additionally terminated due to mental incompetence. The court determined that termination served the children's best interests.
Both parents appealed, raising several issues including whether DCS demonstrated abandonment, persistence of conditions, reasonable efforts for reunification, and the best interests of the children. Mother specifically questioned the evidence of her mental incompetence and the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss based on the State's failure to produce key witnesses for cross-examination. Father also contested the evidence of his abandonment through failure to provide support.
A parent holds a fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of their child, as recognized by both the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. State interference with these rights is permissible only when a compelling state interest exists. Termination of parental rights can occur when specific statutory grounds, as outlined in Tennessee law, are met, and it must also be in the child's best interest. In such cases, the burden of proof lies with the party seeking termination, who must provide clear and convincing evidence for both the statutory grounds and the child's best interest. This standard requires a high degree of certainty regarding the truth of the evidence presented.
Appellate courts review trial court findings of fact de novo, with a presumption of correctness unless the evidence strongly suggests otherwise. When witness credibility is at issue, trial judges have an advantage due to their direct observation of the witnesses, and appellate courts give significant weight to the trial court’s assessment of credibility.
The trial court identified distinct grounds for termination of parental rights for each parent, as well as shared grounds, with an intention to analyze each case separately while considering both individual and joint grounds for termination.
The trial court terminated Father's parental rights based on abandonment through willful failure to support, determining he did not provide any financial support for his children during the four months preceding the termination petition. Despite having an associate's degree and being found intelligent, Father's employment history was poor, consisting of low-paying, part-time work. He was discharged from his last job for sleeping on the job and had only paid a total of $152.26 in child support over the previous year, failing to meet the court-ordered $30.00 monthly obligation. Father did not support his youngest child at all. His claim of difficulty maintaining employment due to a medical condition was deemed uncredible as no medical proof was provided. The court found no evidence of disability or incarceration that would prevent him from supporting his children. Therefore, the evidence clearly supported the conclusion that he abandoned his children through willful failure to provide support.
Mother's parental rights were terminated due to mental incompetence under Tenn. Code Ann. 36-1-113(g)(8)(B). The court determined that her mental condition was so impaired that she was unlikely to care for her children in the foreseeable future. Expert testimony indicated significant concerns regarding her mental health, cognitive abilities, and parenting skills, as well as a lack of adequate family support. Mother, who holds a special education high school diploma and receives SSI for mental disability, has a very low intelligence score and a second-grade reading level, contributing to her inability to maintain employment. The court concluded that her mental incapacity justified the termination of her parental rights.
Dr. Ladd assessed that Mother's cognitive limitations hinder her parenting abilities, with a bleak prognosis for improvement. Despite various services offered by DCS since the children were placed in custody, Mother showed minimal progress in developing parenting skills, leading Dr. Ladd to conclude that further services would be of little benefit. Mother contested the admissibility of Dr. Ladd's testimony and the Compass Care assessment, arguing that the assessors did not testify at trial. However, this argument was not sufficiently developed in her brief, resulting in a waiver of the issue.
The trial court's finding of Mother's incompetence was supported by psychological evaluations indicating low intelligence and significant deficits in parenting skills. Testimonies from professionals, including a HUGS nurse and a Compass Care employee, highlighted Mother's inability to follow instructions and supervise her children adequately, raising safety concerns during visitations. Overall, the evidence strongly indicated Mother's mental incapacity to provide proper care for her children. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, identifying grounds for termination that included abandonment due to failure to provide a suitable home and persistent conditions that led to the children's removal.
The trial court concluded that Mother and Father abandoned their children by failing to provide a suitable home, as established under Tenn. Code Ann. 36-1-113(g)(1) and defined in Tenn. Code Ann. 36-1-102(1)(A)(ii). Evidence showed that the home was severely neglected at the time of the removal of the oldest children on October 26, 2007, with unsanitary conditions including animal feces, lack of running water, and extreme clutter. Their subsequent home was similarly unsuitable, featuring dangerous conditions such as broken glass and exposed electrical fixtures. Despite being offered financial assistance for a suitable residence by DCS and being informed of the unsuitability of their chosen home, the parents declined help and moved in anyway in November 2007.
Following the removal of their youngest child on April 15, 2008, the court noted that the parents still lacked suitable housing, indicating a lack of concern for providing a safe environment. The parents had lived in at least four residences over sixteen months, none of which were appropriate until early 2009. The court evaluated efforts made by DCS and the parents in the four months post-removal, determining that DCS made reasonable attempts to assist the parents with housing, which the parents largely ignored. In-home services were also provided to teach basic hygiene and housekeeping skills, but the parents struggled to implement these lessons. Although Mother eventually secured a suitable residence, the eighteen-month delay and her inability to effectively parent led the court to deem it unsuitable, emphasizing that a suitable home encompasses more than just a physical location—it must also be safe, clean, and nurturing for the children.
The trial court's determination that the parents abandoned their children by failing to provide a suitable home is supported by clear and convincing evidence. The relevant periods for the two oldest children were from October 26, 2007, to February 26, 2008, and for the youngest child, from April 17, 2008, to August 17, 2008. The grounds for termination of parental rights under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(3) are applicable when the conditions leading to removal persist unremedied. The statute stipulates that the failure to remedy conditions does not need to be willful. Continued inability to provide essential care, regardless of willfulness, can prevent the safe return of a child.
Efforts made to assist the parents in improving their parenting abilities over an extended period proved ineffective, leading to a justified conclusion that there is little likelihood of improvement allowing for the children's safe return. The purpose of the "persistence of conditions" ground is to avoid prolonged uncertainty for the child in foster care if the parent cannot demonstrate an ability to provide a safe environment within a reasonable time. All three children were adjudicated dependent and neglected on July 16, 2008, following the removal based on environmental neglect. The trial court noted that from October 2007 until early 2009, neither parent secured a suitable residence for the children.
Since the removal of the children, significant ongoing conditions indicate that they would likely face further abuse or neglect if returned to their parents. The mother has not improved her parenting capabilities despite receiving extensive training and assistance; her limited cognitive ability renders her incapable of managing three children independently, and her family cannot provide the necessary support. The court found that the mother loves her children but lacks the skills to care for them adequately.
The father is under a No Contact Order due to allegations of sexual abuse and has not contested this order or demonstrated that it is safe for the children to be with him. His living situation is unstable, as he is currently unemployed and residing with relatives, unable to provide a safe home. Conditions that led to the children's removal remain unchanged, and he has not taken steps to address his employment issues or the allegations against him.
The trial court concluded that the conditions warranting removal persist, and there is little likelihood of timely resolution. Continuation of the parent-child relationship could hinder the children's chances for a safe, stable, and permanent home. The court did not find the previous allegations of sexual abuse to be substantiated.
The Court expresses significant concern regarding testimony about a father observed holding his child while exhibiting inappropriate physical arousal. This raises alarms given the context of the children's prior removal due to unsafe conditions. Evidence indicates that both parents failed to rectify the issues that led to the children's removal over a span of six months, including the father's ongoing unemployment and inadequate financial support, characterized by minimal child support payments and unsuitable housing. Despite receiving parenting training, the father did not demonstrate necessary skills for safe child care, as corroborated by multiple witnesses who noted his inattentiveness during visitations.
The mother also showed minimal progress in her parenting capabilities, with assessments indicating no improvement since the children were placed in state custody. A parenting skills assessor concluded that further services would not yield significant benefits, and a therapist echoed concerns regarding the mother's ability to safely supervise her children. Although the mother achieved stable housing and was consistent in visiting her children, her ongoing inability to provide essential care, even without malice, was deemed a barrier to their return. The efforts from social services and the mother's attempts to learn parenting skills were ultimately ineffective, leading the Court to affirm the trial court’s decision to terminate parental rights based on the persistence of conditions affecting both parents.
Before terminating parental rights, the trial court must verify that the Department of Children's Services (DCS) made reasonable efforts to assist the parent in addressing the issues that led to the children's removal, as mandated by Tennessee Code Annotated § 37-1-166(a). DCS is required to provide clear and convincing evidence of these efforts. The statutes § 36-1-113 and § 37-1-166, which govern parental rights termination and DCS's obligations prior to custody decisions, respectively, should be interpreted together. "Reasonable efforts" encompasses a defined standard of care and diligence by DCS in providing necessary services for the family. The trial court's evaluation should consider various factors, including the reasons for parental separation, the parents' capabilities, the resources available to them, their efforts to remedy issues, and the extent of DCS's available resources and services. DCS must submit an affidavit outlining the necessity for removal, specific services provided, and any barriers to service provision. Meeting these affidavit requirements can substantiate DCS's efforts as reasonable. A parent must contest the reasonableness of DCS's actions for the court to question their adequacy.
DCS is not obligated to provide additional evidence of its remedial efforts unless a parent challenges the reasonableness of those efforts, in which case DCS may need to substantiate its claims. Noncompliance with statutory requirements does not invalidate DCS's case, provided sufficient specific evidence is presented to demonstrate reasonableness. The review process may continue even if DCS fails to file required affidavits, as seen in past cases.
In the current situation, the record lacks affidavits for the two oldest children, though there is one for the youngest, whose court ratification is uncertain. Consequently, a comprehensive review of the record is warranted to assess DCS's evidence of reasonable efforts. The effectiveness of a parent's remedial actions often hinges on DCS's support, which is mandated regardless of parental requests for assistance. DCS must engage in reasonable efforts beyond merely listing available services.
While DCS has a duty to assist, parents also bear responsibility for addressing the issues leading to their children's removal. The trial court concluded that DCS had made reasonable efforts, a finding supported by evidence that included scheduling counseling, providing resources, facilitating parenting classes, and arranging for in-home services. These actions were geared towards equipping the parents with skills necessary for reunification. Following the birth of the youngest child, services continued under a new provider, Compass Care, through the termination hearing.
Ms. Shepard testified that the Department of Children's Services (DCS) utilized all available resources to assist the family. Although there were delays and disruptions in in-home services—specifically, Options began working with the family in March 2008 and experienced a funding-related interruption in the summer of 2008—these issues do not undermine DCS's significant efforts towards family reunification. Prior to Options’ involvement, DCS addressed the family's housing, employment, and mental health needs.
Mother criticized the quality of DCS's support, specifically mentioning her dissatisfaction with receiving “hands-on” parenting training without her children present and the limited environment in which she could practice her skills. Despite acknowledging Mother's concerns, it was determined that these circumstances did not negate DCS’s reasonable efforts. Additionally, Ms. Webb tailored parenting classes to accommodate Mother's learning style, and visitation locations were chosen based on the children's familiarity and Mother's previous lack of suitable housing.
Father claimed he received inadequate services, particularly after a no contact order was issued, but this was deemed unfounded. DCS had provided substantial assistance prior to the order, and there were multiple instances of Father not following through with DCS’s recommendations. The court emphasized that reunification is a shared responsibility, requiring both DCS and the parents to make reasonable efforts to address the issues that led to the children's removal.
Father did not make reasonable efforts to enable the return of his children, while the Department of Children's Services (DCS) fulfilled its obligations. A court in Tennessee must determine that terminating a biological parent's rights is in the child's best interest, as outlined in Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(c)(2). The court considers various factors, including the parent's adjustment to circumstances, the effect of the environment on the child's well-being, and any history of abuse or neglect. The juvenile court found that both parents failed to make necessary adjustments despite DCS's assistance. Specifically, Father's non-payment of child support and lack of improvement in circumstances were noted. The court also cited Mother's cognitive limitations affecting her ability to care for the children. The guardian ad litem emphasized the children's best interests in recommending termination. Other factors included a history of neglect, Father's marijuana possession arrest, and the children’s stable placement with foster parents. The court concluded there was clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of both parents' rights, affirming the trial court's decision. Costs of the appeal are equally divided between Mother and Father.
