In re Addison B., E2016-00966-COA-R3-PT

Background

Child (Addison) born 2007; DCS first involved 2012 after disclosures by Addison (age 5) and her half-sister that Father sexually touched them; ex parte restraining order entered 12/3/2012.
Father arrested 4/16/2013 on multiple child-rape counts; juvenile court entered restraining order in 11/2013; Father later released on $350,000 bond in Jan 2014 with ankle monitor and no-contact restrictions.
After reports of continued contact (including overnight visits and bed-sharing), Mother was arrested for making a false statement; Addison was placed in DCS custody 5/3/2014 and placed in foster care.
Father pled guilty in Dec 2014 to two counts of attempted child rape and was sentenced to eight years imprisonment (plus lifetime supervision and sex-offender registration); DCS filed to terminate Father’s parental rights 4/28/2015.
Trial (April 1, 2016) produced limited evidence (Father and DCS worker); juvenile court found six statutory grounds proven and that termination was in the child’s best interest; Court of Appeals affirmed in part, vacated some ground findings, and affirmed best-interest determination.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCS)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Abandonment — willful failure to support (incarcerated parent)	Father made only token support ($60) in relevant 4-month window; thus willfully failed to support.	Father lacked proof of capacity/means during the relevant period; no evidence of income/expenses to show willfulness.	Vacated — DCS failed to prove willfulness given absence of evidence of Father’s means.
Abandonment — wanton disregard (incarcerated parent)	Father’s pre-incarceration sexual conduct and later violation of no-contact order show wanton disregard for child’s welfare.	Father denied wrongdoing (Alford plea); argued convictions should not automatically prove wanton disregard.	Affirmed — court credited evidence and Father’s conduct showed wanton disregard.
Substantial noncompliance with permanency plan	Father refused to sign the plan and failed to complete requirements (psychosexual eval, sex-offender training, contact DCS).	Father was incarcerated and restricted by no-contact order, limiting ability to comply; he participated in available prison programs and attempted compliance.	Vacated — noncompliance not shown to be substantial under the circumstances of incarceration and efforts made.
Persistent conditions	Child had been removed >6 months and conditions preventing safe return persisted.	Father contended; DCS needed proper prior removal order based on dependency/neglect.	Vacated — threshold removal order insufficient; DCS conceded lack of appropriate order.
Severe child abuse (court finding)	DCS: Father committed acts constituting severe child abuse (digital penetration), proven by plea, statements, and testimony.	Father continued to assert innocence and questioned applicability.	Affirmed — trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that severe child abuse occurred.
Sentenced for child abuse (statutory ground)	Father was sentenced to 8 years for conduct the court found to be severe child abuse.	Father argued plea/conviction could be challenged on appeal.	Affirmed — statutory ground met because sentence >2 years for conduct found to be severe abuse.
Best interest of the child	DCS: Termination serves child’s need for safety, stable home; Father incarcerated long-term and relationship is minimal.	Father argued for parental preservation; identified program participation and housing.	Affirmed — combined facts (conviction, no meaningful relationship, stable pre-adoptive placement) support best interest finding.

Key Cases Cited

In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533 (Tenn. 2015) (framework for statutory grounds and best-interest analysis in parental termination)
In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. 2010) (clear-and-convincing standard in termination cases)
In re Adoption of Angela E., 402 S.W.3d 636 (Tenn. 2013) (importance of proving parent’s financial means when alleging willful failure to support)
In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (discussion of incarceration as a trigger to examine parental conduct/wanton disregard)
In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (Tenn. 2002) (reasonableness and relation of permanency-plan requirements to removal and reunification)
In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016) (appellate standard: de novo review of legal conclusions after reviewing trial findings)
State v. Hood, 338 S.W.3d 917 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (examples of conduct constituting wanton disregard for child welfare)