In Re: Adoption of T.L.H., A Minor Child Erik Holt v. Christopher Lee Morris, et ux, Sarah Lynn

Citation: Not availableDocket: M2008-01408-COA-R3-PT

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; January 20, 2009; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee vacated and remanded an order that terminated Erik Holt's parental rights and granted the adoption of his child, T.L.H., by Christopher Lee Morris, the child's stepfather, due to insufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law by the trial court. T.L.H. was born to Holt and Sarah Lynn Morris in 2000; they lived together until their separation in 2004. In 2005, a juvenile court recognized Holt as T.L.H.’s father and granted him visitation and child support obligations. However, Stepfather and Mother filed a petition for adoption in 2007, claiming Holt willfully failed to visit or support T.L.H. for over four months, lacked the ability or willingness to assume custody, and that termination of his rights was in the child's best interest. Testimony revealed that Holt had not seen T.L.H. since 2005 and had not consistently paid child support. Mother claimed she never denied Holt visitation, while Holt asserted he attempted to visit but was unable to reach Mother. The case highlights the ongoing issues of parental rights, visitation, and the child's best interests in adoption proceedings.

Father expressed his fear of incarceration for unpaid child support, which he claimed was not willful due to financial constraints. He reported earning $7,000 to $8,000 in the previous year without stable employment, relying on temporary and sporadic "strike jobs." At trial, he had just started a temporary job in South Carolina and worked for his father at a rate of $10 to $12 per hour. Father indicated that his blindness in one eye hindered his job prospects, and he had lost his driver's license due to unpaid traffic citations. He resided on his family's farm with his girlfriend, who had recently given birth. Father intended to save money to pay child support if his parental rights were not terminated.

The trial court ruled to grant the adoption of T.L.H. by the Stepfather and Mother, terminating Father's parental rights based on a finding of willful abandonment. The court expressed significant doubts about the credibility of Father's testimony and noted his lack of visitation or support payments since April 2005. The court also highlighted the inconsistency of Father having a newborn with his girlfriend while failing to fulfill his obligations to T.L.H. The ruling was based on clear and convincing evidence.

Father filed a notice of appeal, presenting issues regarding the trial court's findings on the child's best interest, reliance on the guardian ad litem's recommendation, the evidence of willful abandonment, and the request for attorney’s fees. The appellate court vacated the chancery court's order and remanded for further proceedings, denying the request for attorney’s fees.

The document underscores the fundamental nature of parental rights while acknowledging that they are not absolute.

A parent's right to their child remains intact unless it has been relinquished, abandoned, or limited by specific conduct. In Tennessee, the termination of parental rights is strictly governed by statute, and a court cannot terminate these rights without clear statutory authority. To initiate termination, parties must demonstrate two elements: the existence of at least one statutory ground for termination as per Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(g), and that termination is in the child's best interest, evaluated through factors outlined in section 36-1-113(i). 

The burden of proof is high; it requires clear and convincing evidence, which is defined as evidence that removes any serious doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn. In parental termination cases, appellate courts review factual findings de novo, presuming correctness unless evidence suggests otherwise, and assess whether the evidence convincingly supports the termination grounds. The trial court's legal conclusions regarding the grounds for termination are reviewed de novo without such presumption.

Tennessee law mandates that trial courts provide specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in parental termination cases to enable effective appellate review and ensure fairness in the process.

Appellate courts require trial courts to provide specific findings of fact and conclusions of law when terminating parental rights, as mandated by Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-1-113(k). Without these findings, appellate courts cannot ascertain the basis for the trial court's decision, affecting both the standard of review and the appeal's viability. A trial court's failure to comply with this statutory requirement undermines the validity of the termination order, necessitating remand for proper findings. The required findings must address two critical elements: (1) the establishment of one or more statutory grounds for termination, and (2) whether terminating parental rights serves the child's best interests. General assertions, such as claiming a parent has "abandoned" a child, are insufficient; detailed findings must be included for each ground for termination and the best interest determination. Courts strictly enforce compliance with these requirements, emphasizing their significance beyond mere technicalities.

A conclusion of law regarding a parent's abandonment of a child, as stated in a final order, does not equate to a factual finding. The order must specify the underlying factual findings that support such legal conclusions. In the referenced case, the trial court's order did not clarify whether it determined abandonment due to failure to visit, failure to support, or both. It briefly noted the father's lack of visitation and support since April 2005 but failed to establish that terminating his parental rights served the child's best interest. Although the trial court acknowledged that adoption was in the child's best interest, this alone does not suffice for terminating parental rights. A similar precedent involved a trial court that also did not find that terminating a mother’s rights was in the children's best interest, despite recognizing adoption as beneficial. In the current case, the trial court failed to provide specific findings on the child's best interest, rendering its conclusion insufficient. The order merely stated that termination of parental rights served the minor child's best interest without factual justification. Consequently, the order did not comply with Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-1-113(k), necessitating its vacating and remand for proper written findings of fact and legal conclusions, including a thorough best interest analysis and evidence of statutory grounds for termination. Additionally, there is a contention regarding the trial court's reliance on an oral report from the guardian ad litem concerning the termination of parental rights, referencing Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 40(f).

A guardian ad litem (GAL) is prohibited from testifying as a witness or submitting reports to the court in proceedings where they serve in that capacity, except under extraordinary circumstances outlined in Supreme Court Rule 8. The GAL must operate as an attorney, presenting evidence and making arguments on behalf of the child's best interests. Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 40 provides guidelines specifically for GALs in juvenile court neglect, abuse, and dependency cases, and does not extend to other child custody matters. In this case, the GAL complied with Rule 40(f) by not testifying but engaging in cross-examination and summarizing expected evidence, arguing for the child's best interests without submitting a formal report. The father's claim that the GAL's opening statement was an improper report is dismissed, as it aligns with the rule's requirements for presenting findings. The court's decision in Toms v. Toms established that while a GAL's report is inadmissible as evidence, it can still be reviewed by the trial court to assist in case preparation. The court found no error in considering the GAL's statements. The father’s request for appellate attorney’s fees was denied based on equitable factors, leading to the vacating of the chancery court’s order and remanding for a compliant order under Tennessee law. Costs of the appeal are assigned to the appellees, Mother and Stepfather.