In Re Austin W., M2020-01315-COA-R3-PT

Background

Child born 2014; parents Shelby C. (mother) and Kelsey W. (father). Mother and father frequently left infant with maternal aunt and uncle; police found meth, paraphernalia, and a firearm in parents’ apartment in 2015.
Juvenile court found the child dependent and neglected in 2015 and placed him in permanent guardianship with Aunt and Uncle; parents had limited supervised visitation.
Father (Kelsey) has a long criminal and drug-history, multiple incarcerations; he spent large portions of the child’s life incarcerated and admitted ongoing drug problems at trial.
Aunt and Uncle cared for the child continuously for five years; they filed a petition to terminate both parents’ rights in February 2020 (mother consented to adoption; termination trial proceeded as to father).
Trial court (Aug. 2020) found by clear and convincing evidence four statutory grounds (abandonment—failure to support; abandonment—wanton disregard; persistent conditions; failure to manifest ability/willingness) and that termination was in the child’s best interest; father appealed only the best-interest finding.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination is in the child's best interest	Termination is in best interest given father’s long-term instability, drug use, repeated incarceration, lack of support, and the child’s stability with guardians	Father argued trial court failed to make required findings of "unfitness" or "substantial harm" as interpreted by In re Carrington and thus termination is improper	Court affirmed: best-interest factors weigh for termination; Carrington does not require a separate explicit finding of unfitness/substantial harm where statutory grounds established; trial court also expressly found unfitness and substantial harm
Abandonment — failure to support (incarcerated parent)	Father failed to provide monetary support during aggregated periods of non‑incarceration; gifts were token and not substitute for support	Father said Aunt/Uncle said they did not want support and no court-ordered child support existed; he pays support for another child and buys occasional items	Held for petitioners: clear and convincing evidence of abandonment for failure to support; trial court misidentified a continuous 4‑month window but broader findings encompassed the correct aggregated period (harmless error)
Abandonment — wanton disregard (incarcerated parent)	Father’s criminal conduct, probation violations, drug use, and leaving child in unsafe environment show wanton disregard for child’s welfare	Father cited efforts at rehab and supervised visitation when not incarcerated	Held for petitioners: father’s repeated criminality, drug abuse, and neglect support wanton‑disregard abandonment finding by clear and convincing evidence
Persistent conditions	The conditions (drug use, criminality, inability to care) that led to removal in 2015 persisted for five years, making safe return unlikely	Father argued improvement/rehab efforts (some classes) and regular visitation when not incarcerated	Held for petitioners: conditions persisted and were unlikely to be remedied soon; clear and convincing evidence met
Failure to manifest ability/willingness to parent (g.14)	Father failed to show ability or willingness to assume custody/financial responsibility; placing child with father would pose substantial harm given instability and incarceration	Father argued he visited when not incarcerated, had relatives who could care for child temporarily, and claimed progress while imprisoned	Held for petitioners: both prongs met by clear and convincing evidence; placing child with father posed substantial risk of harm

Key Cases Cited

In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (explains statutory burden and that best-interest analysis is separate from grounds; constitutional unfitness inquiry is subsumed by statutory grounds)
In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533 (Tenn. 2015) (discusses statutory framework for termination petitions)
In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. 2010) (requires clear and convincing proof in termination proceedings)
In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (rejects requirement for a separate explicit finding of parental unfitness when statutory grounds are proven)
In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (addresses best-interest analysis following establishment of statutory grounds)
In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (Tenn. 2002) (explains burden for proving persistent‑conditions ground)
In re Neveah M., 614 S.W.3d 659 (Tenn. 2020) (clarifies the two‑prong analysis for g.14 failure‑to‑manifest ground)
In re Swanson, 2 S.W.3d 180 (Tenn. 1999) (constitutional requirement that termination be premised on parental unfitness or risk of substantial harm)
In re Gabriella D., 531 S.W.3d 662 (Tenn. 2017) (discusses best-interest statutory factors and child‑centered perspective)