384 S.W.3d 731
Tenn. Ct. App.2010Background
- This is a termination of parental rights and adoption case in which the child, Keri, was born September 25, 2005 to Christy C. (Mother) who tested positive for cocaine at birth.
- DCS removed Keri and required a safety plan; custody shifted to Great Grandmother, then to the Belchers (Mother’s cousin and her husband) where Keri has remained since January 2006.
- SSI benefits for Keri funded caregivers; Mother had limited employment and attended outpatient rehab from late 2007 to early 2008.
- Belchers petitioned on January 24, 2008 to terminate Mother’s parental rights for abandonment by failure to support and failure to visit; Child custody remained with Belchers pending proceedings.
- Trial court held abandonment by willful failure to support and willful failure to engage in more than token visitation within the four months preceding the petition; Best interests were later found in favor of termination.
- On February 16, 2010, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights and awarded guardianship to the Belchers; Mother appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there clear and convincing evidence of abandonment by willful failure to support? | Mother argues no willfulness; no court order required support; SSI does not discharge duty. | Belchers argue Mother had ability to pay and knowingly failed to pay during the four-month period. | Yes; clear and convincing evidence showed willful failure to support. |
| Was there clear and convincing evidence of abandonment by willful failure to visit or token visitation? | Mother contends visits were meaningful and not merely token; she engaged with Keri during gatherings. | Belchers contend visits were limited, sporadic, and largely token in duration. | Yes; visits were token and undertaken with willful lack of sustained effort to bond. |
| Did the best interests standard support termination once grounds were proven? | Mother argues bond and efforts to complete safety plan undermine termination. | Belchers assert best interests favor termination given lack of stable housing/employment and ongoing conduct. | Yes; best interests supported termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Tiffany B., 228 S.W.3d 148 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (clear and convincing standard; framework for weighing willfulness and token visitation)
- In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (willfulness defined; preservation of parental rights in termination context)
- In re M.L.P., 281 S.W.3d 387 (Tenn. 2009) (parents presumed to know duty to support; knowledge factor in willfulness)
- In re S.M., 149 S.W.3d 632 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (standard for termination; deference to trial court credibility findings)
- In re Adoption of A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793 (Tenn. 2007) (redirected efforts to courts may negate willfulness when custodians oppose visitation)
- In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (willfulness requires awareness of duty and intentional noncompliance)
- Blair v. Badenhope, 77 S.W.3d 137 (Tenn. 2002) (parental rights termination framework and due process considerations)