The Court of Appeals of Tennessee reviewed a case concerning the termination of parental rights of Tonza Williams to her five children. The children were initially removed from her custody in May 1998 due to allegations of physical abuse. They were returned to her care in May 1999 following improvements in her parenting skills, as reported by the Department of Children's Services (DCS). However, the children were taken back into DCS custody on March 1, 2000, after one child was found with severe injuries.
DCS established a permanency plan outlining responsibilities for Ms. Williams, which included making contact with DCS, obtaining a psychological evaluation, learning appropriate discipline methods, attending drug and alcohol classes, and submitting to drug testing. Although she initially engaged in visitation, Ms. Williams ceased contact from June to December 2000. She resumed contact in December 2000 and revised the plans in January 2001, although the essential responsibilities remained unchanged.
A Petition for Termination of Parental Rights was filed on February 22, 2001, listing multiple respondents, including Ms. Williams. The court allowed for a guardian ad litem to represent the children's interests. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the juvenile court's decision to terminate Ms. Williams' parental rights.
The guardian ad litem submitted an Answer on July 10, 2001, indicating that all children are thriving in foster care, despite some disciplinary issues linked to their mother's influence, particularly affecting T.J.C. and T.K.C.'s grades. T.S.C. expressed a desire for family reunification, showing emotional distress during conversations with the guardian. The mother's family is unable to provide a suitable home for the children. Ms. Williams, the mother, claimed to have been drug-free for seven months, attending daily rehab sessions, and expressed remorse for past abuse, attributing it to depression and stress from caring for five children. However, she admitted to having no current employment and was living with her mother. On July 31, 2001, the Referee recommended that the children remain in foster care. On October 5, 2001, the children’s paternal aunt, Rosetta Watkins, petitioned for custody but indicated she could not manage without state assistance. The guardian ad litem expressed concerns about the adequacy of Ms. Watkins' understanding of the children's behavioral issues. Ms. Williams secured a job at Saint Frances Hospital and expressed a desire for custody of two children, but previously declined a program at Moriah House. The Amended Petition for Termination of Parental Rights was filed on October 11, 2001, citing severe child abuse under T.C.A. 36-1-113(g)(4). A hearing occurred from October 16-17, 2001, where DCS case manager Ms. Senetra Miller testified that Ms. Williams partially complied with visitation requirements from March to July 2000.
Ms. Williams missed scheduled visits with DCS and her children on July 18 and July 25, 2000, and did not contact them again until December 22, 2000. She resumed visitation on January 11, 2001, but subsequently canceled visits due to work conflicts, and later canceled a visit on June 21, 2001, due to incarceration. Between July and September 2001, she had several visits but canceled one on September 28, with no further visits before the October hearing.
Regarding a required psychological evaluation, Ms. Williams was referred to LeBonheur Center for Children and Parents (CCP) but failed to attend a crucial second appointment after an initial meeting on June 21, 2000. Reports from CCP indicated that she initially denied causing her child's injuries, contrary to her children's accounts, and displayed a lack of understanding of their emotional needs, attributing her abusive behavior to her substance abuse and children's actions. Despite acknowledging her issues with alcohol and crack use, she continued substance use and missed multiple appointments for her evaluation.
After reconnecting with DCS, she was re-referred to CCP on July 30, 2001, and attended a meeting on September 28, 2001. The subsequent report noted her genuine intention to maintain sobriety, though she lacked a stable home and income. While she expressed a desire to improve as a mother, she voiced concerns about her ability to manage the stress of parenting five children, indicating doubts about her patience and ability to cope.
Concerns persist regarding Ms. Williams' perception of her relationship with her children, as she emphasizes how they fulfill her needs rather than focusing on their needs and the impact of her past abuse on them. The severity of her past abuse raises ongoing concerns, particularly regarding the attachment levels of her children, with only [T.S.C.] expressing a strong bond and desire for reunification at the last evaluation in June 2000. Ms. Miller testified that a meeting on September 28, 2001, led to a "social history," and Ms. Williams was required to attend a second psychological evaluation appointment on October 5, 2001, which she missed, leading to noncompliance with her Plans. Notably, the requirement for psychological evaluation was removed from the January 18, 2001 Plans, in effect when Ms. Williams missed her appointments.
Additionally, Ms. Williams was mandated to gain insight into proper disciplinary methods and was participating in classes at the Exchange Club from March 28 to May 16, 2001, of which she attended five out of eight classes. However, she did not participate in any educational workshops focused on anger management or coping skills. In December 2000, she initiated an alcohol recovery program at Freedom Road, attending significantly more meetings than required. On March 8, 2001, she was referred to the Memphis Alcohol and Drug Council Program, where she signed a compliance form and completed necessary screenings. By June 25, 2001, she had attended twelve of thirteen group sessions and demonstrated active participation and insight into conflict resolution without substance use.
On August 1, 2001, Ms. Williams received a Certificate of Completion from the Memphis Alcohol and Drug Council for participating in Low Intensive Outpatient Level II. During a hearing, she indicated that she had only attended one Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meeting since starting work at St. Francis, which was the previous Friday. Ms. Williams underwent four drug screens from the Council, all of which were negative, with the first screen conducted on January 23, 2001, and the last on August 7, 2001.
At the time of the hearing, she lived with her mother, Teresa Williams, in a one-bedroom apartment at Cleaborn Homes and stated they were scheduled to move to a two-bedroom apartment at Foote Homes, although she could not specify when. DCS case worker Ms. Miller testified that the living situation was unstable for the children, citing issues during an extended visit of the grandchild T.S.C. with Teresa, although she did not provide specific details. Ms. Williams described her mother's mental health issues and noted that DCS had not assisted her with housing. She expressed a desire to bring her children home once she secured her own apartment.
Ms. Williams mentioned limited contact with her extended family but received support from Freedom Road and her sister-in-law, Rosetta Watkins. Employed as a hospitality attendant at St. Francis Hospital, she relied on public transportation, taking an hour and a half to commute. During the hearing, she admitted to having likely hurt her child C.B.W. due to being irritable and under the influence of drugs and alcohol. She also acknowledged past physical discipline of her children but disputed the extent and circumstances of her actions, specifically regarding an injury to T.S.C. that she attributed to an accident.
The court engaged with a witness regarding allegations of physical abuse towards children, particularly focusing on claims that the witness kicked one child, C.B.W., in the head. The witness denied these allegations, attributing C.B.W.'s black eyes to a hit with her hand during a stressful morning. The court pressed the witness on various other accusations, including suffocation threats and incidents involving a spoon and water, all of which the witness also denied. The proceedings referenced prior findings of fact from an Order Terminating Parental Rights dated November 13, 2001, detailing the children's dependency and neglect due to the mother’s substance abuse and prior physical abuse. Following initial custody with a maternal uncle, the children were placed in state custody again after allegations of renewed abuse surfaced. Significant injuries to C.B.W. prompted further state intervention, and throughout this period, the children's father was incarcerated for aggravated assault. The mother had previously completed rehabilitation programs, but the case highlighted ongoing concerns about her drug use and the children's safety.
Testimony revealed that the witness and Ms. Williams cohabited intermittently, living apart for 7 to 8 months before February 3, 1998. The witness denied knowledge of Ms. Williams' drug use, despite her claims of spending $100 daily on crack cocaine, along with marijuana and alcohol, and regarded her as a good mother. He was unaware of her receiving food stamps or welfare and provided minimal support during their separation. His communication with their children and Ms. Williams ceased during his incarceration, although he claimed to have sent letters that were not acknowledged by her.
Respondents Barry Williams, Rudolph Cooper, and unidentified fathers failed to respond to a petition to terminate parental rights, leading to a motion for default judgment against them. For four consecutive months prior to the petition, they were deemed to have abandoned the children, showing no effort to visit or provide a suitable home, indicating a lack of concern for the children's welfare. They also neglected to pay for prenatal and postnatal expenses and did not seek visitation rights or file a paternity petition within the required timeframe. It was asserted that placing the children with the respondents posed a risk of substantial harm.
Ms. Williams admitted to a long-standing drug and alcohol abuse problem, which she linked to the abuse of her children. From June 28 to December 21, 2000, she made no effort to contact her children and had a series of arranged visits in early 2001, some of which she canceled or missed. While acknowledging that her children suffered abuse while in her care, she attributed this solely to her substance abuse and denied specific allegations of severe mistreatment made by the children.
Ms. Williams identified Mr. Hugh Crawford as the father of her children T.K.C., T.J.C., and T.S.C., while expressing uncertainty about the fathers of C.B.W. and T.S.W. due to her drug use. She claimed that she and Crawford were married in 1993 and lived together until his incarceration in 1998, contradicting his testimony. Following her decision to overcome drug addiction in December 2000, she enrolled in a treatment program but failed to attend multiple required meetings and has not adhered to other recommended mental health treatments. A mental health evaluation indicated she suffers from recurrent major depressive disorder and polysubstance dependence, with recommendations for medication and counseling that she has largely ignored.
Despite obtaining a job in October 2001, she has not maintained long-term employment and missed visitation with her children due to work conflicts. The Department of Children’s Services set goals for her participation in evaluations, drug screenings, and counseling, which she has not met. From mid-2000 to early 2001, her children had no contact with her, leading to a lack of bond, particularly noted with T.S.W. and C.B.W. The children exhibit behavioral issues and emotional distress related to their contact with their mother, including T.K.C.'s acting out. The foster parents report that the children have thrived in care and wish to adopt them, while T.S.C. requires intensive psychological support due to disruptive behavior in placements.
The Department of Children’s Services acknowledged T.S.C.'s needs but did not provide adequate services due to financial constraints. T.S.C. has suffered abuse from her mother and witnessed her siblings' abuse, yet she expresses a strong desire to live with her mother.
The Court found clear and convincing evidence supporting the following conclusions:
1. Jurisdiction exists under TCA § 36-1-113(a) and § 37-1-104.
2. Respondents, including Mr. Barry Williams, Mr. Rudolph Cooper, and unknown fathers, are deemed to have abandoned the children as per TCA § 36-1-113(g)(1) and § 36-1-102(1)(A).
3. Respondents failed to demonstrate the willingness and ability to take responsibility for the children under TCA § 36-1-113(g)(8)(A).
4. Terminating the Respondents’ parental rights serves the best interest of the children, supported by TCA § 36-1-113(c)(2).
5. Clear and convincing evidence justifies the termination of parental rights as outlined in TCA § 36-1-113(c)(1).
6. Findings deemed conclusions of law are adopted as such.
7. Mr. Hugh Crawford effectively abandoned his children during the seven months prior to his incarceration, providing only token support and contact.
8. Crawford's neglect and criminal behavior, which led to his incarceration, indicate a willful disregard for his children's welfare, supporting findings of abandonment.
9. Ms. Tonza Williams also effectively abandoned her children by December 21, 2000, but the Department delayed filing a termination petition until February 22, 2001, during which she had two visits.
10. The court could not find a lapse of 60 days prior to the petition as "immediate," thus not sustaining a finding of abandonment for Ms. Williams.
11. The children were removed due to a juvenile court petition, which found them dependent and neglected. The Department made reasonable efforts to assist the mother in establishing a suitable home, but she showed insufficient concern for the children, making it unlikely she could provide a suitable home in the near future.
The court determined that the mother has significantly failed to comply with the responsibilities outlined in the permanency plan, leading to the prolonged removal of her children from the home for over six months. The conditions that resulted in their removal likely pose a continuing risk of abuse or neglect, hindering the children's safe return to her care. The court noted that the likelihood of these issues being resolved soon is low, and maintaining the parent-child relationship would adversely affect the children's prospects for finding a safe and stable permanent home.
Specifically, the mother has not completed a required psychological evaluation, disregarded her mental health professional's advice, failed to secure stable employment, and lacks an understanding of her children's needs. Her visitation with the children has been minimal and superficial, resulting in no meaningful relationship. The detrimental effects of continued contact with the parents on the children's well-being were highlighted, particularly due to the mother's mental health issues, history of substance abuse, and depression, which impede her ability to provide a safe environment.
Additionally, the court found that the mother had knowingly exposed one child, C.B.W., to severe abuse, evidenced by physical injuries and psychological trauma related to water. The termination of parental rights was deemed to be in the children's best interests.
Regarding the father, Hugh Crawford, the court found he had abandoned the children, and his appeal process has been marked by a lack of engagement, including the withdrawal of his counsel and failure to submit necessary legal documents.
The appeal brought by Tonza Williams challenges the trial court's decision to amend the termination petition to include allegations of "severe child abuse" shortly before the hearing and questions the court's finding of severe child abuse given that similar issues were previously adjudicated as dependency and neglect.
The trial court's application of the statutory definition of "severe child abuse" is questioned, specifically regarding the relevance and privilege of undisclosed documents controlled by the State, including those in the case manager's file. The court also considers whether statements made by a DCS attorney in meetings, even with third parties present, are protected under attorney-client privilege. Additionally, there are inquiries into whether the trial court's findings were based on clear and convincing evidence, particularly concerning the mother's progress and adherence to permanency plans after the original petition was filed.
The case was reviewed de novo, assuming the trial court's factual findings were correct unless contrary evidence was presented. Regarding the discovery issues, the trial court had approved a request for documents, but some were redacted or withheld. Judge Horne conducted an in camera inspection and deemed the withheld documents as both attorney-client privileged and irrelevant to the case's focus on events prior to February. The trial court's discretion in evidence admission was upheld, with no abuse of discretion found.
Ultimately, the appellate court determined that clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of the mother's parental rights on grounds other than severe child abuse, allowing them to forgo further discussion on that issue. The relevant legal citations and statutory references were also noted concerning the termination of parental rights.
Petitioners allege that Respondents have abandoned their children for four consecutive months prior to the filing of the Petition, citing willful failures to visit and provide financial support. The children were removed from the custody of Respondent Tonza Williams Crawford due to a court finding of dependency and neglect under T.C.A. 37-1-102. Following this removal, the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services made reasonable efforts to help Crawford establish a suitable home, but she failed to demonstrate any reasonable efforts or concern for the children, suggesting an unlikely ability to provide a suitable home in the near future.
Pursuant to T.C.A. 36-1-113(g)(2) and 37-2-403, Petitioners claim Crawford has substantially failed to meet her responsibilities outlined in the children’s Permanency Plans (noted as Exhibit No. 4, although not attached). They further assert, under T.C.A. 36-1-113(g)(3)(A), that the children have been out of Crawford's custody for at least six months, with persistent conditions that would likely lead to further abuse or neglect if returned to her care. It is argued that maintaining the parent-child relationship hinders the children's chances of achieving a stable, permanent home.
Petitioners assert that termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the children, as supported by T.C.A. 36-1-113(d)(3)(C) and 37-1-147. They emphasize that clear and convincing evidence of any one ground suffices for termination. A review of the record indicates that while Crawford has made some progress since January 2001 in addressing her substance abuse issues and complying with the Plans, her past failures to adhere to the Plans from March to December 2000 continue to cast doubt on her current efforts. The children were initially removed from her custody on May 22, 1998, and although she regained custody a year later, she did not effectively apply the skills learned in parenting classes, leading to their subsequent removal on March 1, 2000.
Ms. Williams began visiting her children under a plan established on March 22, 2000, but from July to December 2000, she made no efforts to contact them or take necessary steps to regain custody. Given her setbacks, substantial compliance with the plan now requires more than completing classes and counseling; it necessitates demonstrable parenting skills applicable in daily life with five active children and proof of sustained sobriety. During her testimony, she acknowledged the need for stable employment and housing beyond drug screening results to ensure her success and prevent further abuse. Ms. Williams has changed jobs multiple times since her children were placed in care, citing instability in her previous positions. Although she claimed to attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings regularly, she faced challenges in balancing her responsibilities, as evidenced by missing her last two visits with the children due to work. The court questioned her ability to manage both her recovery and care for her children, to which she expressed confidence in finding a balance. However, her testimony indicated a lack of clear evidence that she could effectively manage her obligations. Furthermore, at the time of the hearing, she was living in a one-bedroom apartment with her mother, highlighting her inability to secure adequate housing for her children.
The mother, Ms. Williams, suffers from manic-depression and other health issues. During testimony, she expressed plans to secure a two-bedroom apartment for herself and her five children, indicating that her current public housing situation would allow for a larger unit if her children were returned to her custody. However, the record lacks evidence that public housing is available or that she qualifies for a two-bedroom unit. The court determined that the children had been removed from the home for over six months, with ongoing conditions preventing their safe return. The likelihood of these conditions being remedied soon is low, negatively impacting the children's chances for a stable and permanent home. As a result, the court found clear and convincing evidence supporting the termination of Ms. Williams' parental rights, affirming the juvenile court's decision. Costs associated with the appeal are assigned to Ms. Williams and her surety.
