556 S.W.3d 774
Tenn. Ct. App.2018Background
- Addalyne S. (born 2013) has lived with maternal grandparents (Anthony and Bethany O.) since infancy; grandparents filed to terminate both parents’ rights in chancery court on December 11, 2015.
- Parents have long histories of substance abuse and criminal charges; both had limited compliance with a prior juvenile-court agreed order requiring drug screens, rehab, and progressive visitation.
- Relevant four‑month period for abandonment claims: Aug 11–Dec 10, 2015 (Mother); Father’s aggregated non‑incarceration periods were June 5–Sept 28, 2015 and Dec 3–Dec 10, 2015 (he was incarcerated Sept 29–Dec 2, 2015).
- Evidence: Mother attended roughly 8 of 22 possible visits in the relevant period, had intermittent employment (≈3 weeks at Aspen Technologies), claimed unreliable transportation, and paid no monetary support during the period (small gifts only); Father admitted earning ~ $100/day, paid only $80 in support during the period, had recent incarceration and drug-treatment history, but maintained regular visitation and a meaningful bond with the child.
- Trial court: found grandparents failed to prove clear and convincing evidence to terminate Mother on grounds of willful failure to visit or support; found clear and convincing evidence Father willfully failed to support but concluded termination of Father’s rights was not in child’s best interest. Court of Appeals affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Grandparents' Argument | Parents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother willfully failed to pay child support (4‑month period) | Mother made no monetary payments in the period; this constituted willful failure to support | Mother lacked capacity to pay (intermittent employment, transportation problems); small gifts not compensation | Held: Grandparents failed to prove Mother willfully failed to support (no clear & convincing proof of capacity) |
| Whether Mother willfully failed to visit (4‑month period) | Low attendance (≈36% of visits) amounted to token visitation and statutory abandonment | Mother’s visits preserved a meaningful bond; transportation issues excused some missed visits | Held: Mother’s visitation was more than token; abandonment by willful failure to visit not proven |
| Whether termination of Mother’s rights is in child’s best interest | Grandparents: stability of their home and parents’ substance history favor termination | Mother: improving stability, steady visitation, bond with child | Held: Not reached (no grounds proven); trial court’s denial as to Mother affirmed |
| Whether Father willfully failed to pay child support (aggregated 4‑month period) | Father earned sufficient income but paid only token support ($80); admission he could have paid supports willfulness | Father argued expenses not established to prove ability to pay; but admitted ability and duty | Held: Grandparents proved by clear & convincing evidence Father willfully failed to support (token support) |
| Whether termination of Father’s rights is in child’s best interest | Grandparents: lack of financial support and child’s stable placement with grandparents favor termination | Father: maintained regular visitation, meaningful bond, completed rehab, stable household; guardian ad litem recommended against severing only Father’s rights | Held: Termination not in child’s best interest; trial court’s denial as to Father affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (1995) (parental custody a fundamental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (heightened proof required to terminate parental rights)
- In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (standards of review and statutory framework for termination appeals)
- In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (parental rights fundamental but not absolute; statutory termination framework)
- In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (definition and analysis of willful failure to visit/support/token visitation/support)