In re Alysia S., 2014 Tenn. App. LEXIS 834

Mother Kathryn S. had a child, Alysia, born December 2006, and DCS involvement arose after Mother relinquished custody to Charlene under a power of attorney in 2010 due to job loss.
In 2010, Alysia was found dependent and neglected and temporarily placed with non-parents (the Mitchells); later, circuit court reversed and reunification with Mother was planned, but never occurred.
Mitchells petitioned to terminate Mother’s parental rights on multiple grounds; the juvenile court found some grounds by clear and convincing evidence, prompting appeals.
On remand from the circuit court, the juvenile court again considered reunification, and visitation orders were adjusted repeatedly through 2011–2013 while therapy and counseling progressed.
Trial in 2013 focused on whether grounds for termination existed; evidence showed Mother’s employment instability and contested visits, but the appellate court ultimately held no grounds supported termination and remanded for expeditious reunification.
The court ultimately dismissed the termination petition, reinstated Mother’s parental rights, vacated visitation orders, and designated custody as temporary pending reunification efforts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether abandonment by willful failure to support was proven	Mitchells: Mother willfully failed to support Alysia in four months before filing.	Mother: she attempted to work, paid for visits and related costs, and was financially unable to provide substantial support during a temporary period.	Abandonment not proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Whether substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan existed	Mitchells: Mother materially failed to comply with permanency plan requirements.	Mother: plans were not true permanency plans and she substantially complied, often without DCS assistance.	No clear and convincing evidence of substantial noncompliance; inapplicable under the facts.
Whether persistent conditions justification for termination applies	Mitchells: persistent conditions existed due to ongoing issues since removal.	Mother: no valid prior removal based on dependency/neglect; persistent-conditions theory not applicable.	Inapplicable because no valid prior removal finding; persistent conditions cannot support termination here.
Whether the court should terminate parental rights under risk of substantial harm	Mitchells: returning child would pose substantial harm to Alysia.	Mother: no evidence supports risk of substantial harm; reunification should be pursued.	Inapplicable as a grounds for termination of a biological parent.

In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2005) (establishes heightened clear-and-convincing standard and willfulness concepts)
In re Angela E., 402 S.W.3d 636 (Tenn. 2013) (defines willfulness and grounds for termination; informs substantial evidence review)
In re Adoption of A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793 (Tenn. 2007) (articulates superior rights and remand guidance for reunification cases)
In re D.L.B., 118 S.W.3d 360 (Tenn. 2003) (standard for willfulness and appellate review in termination cases)
In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. 2010) (clarifies grounds for termination of biological parents; statutory interpretation)
In re J.C.D., 254 S.W.3d 432 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2007) (treats de novo factual review and standard for termination findings)
Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573 (Tenn. 1993) (cites constitutional concerns in custody decisions)