In Re B.B.
M2016-00953-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Feb 28, 2017Background
- Mother (T.B.) has chronic, diagnosed mental illnesses (bipolar, personality affective disorder, PTSD, anxiety) with a history of suicide attempts and long-term therapy; three minor children (B.B., D.B., H.B.) had been adjudicated dependent/neglected in 2010 and placed with maternal grandparents (C.S. and W.S.).
- Grandparents obtained temporary custody (2011) and later sought to terminate Mother's parental rights after conflicts and contested supervised visits; Mother filed to regain custody and Grandparents counterclaimed for termination.
- Trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, grounds to terminate under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(8)(B)(i),(ii) (parent's mental condition) and (g)(9)(A)(iv),(v) (failure to manifest ability/willingness; risk of substantial harm), and concluded termination was in the children’s best interest.
- The final written order terminated Mother's parental rights and awarded custody/guardianship to the Grandparents but did not contain detailed written findings of fact or conclusions of law required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(k).
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that subsection (g)(9)(A) does not apply to a biological mother and vacated termination under that ground; it also vacated the (g)(8) termination because the trial court failed to issue the statutorily required written findings and remanded for proper findings.
Issues
| Issue | Grandparents' Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(9)(A) provides a ground to terminate a biological mother's rights | (Grandparents) § 36-1-113(g)(9)(A)(iv),(v) apply to Mother due to her inability/willingness and risk to children | (Mother) § 36-1-113(g)(9)(A) cannot apply to a biological parent | Court: (vacated) § 36-1-113(g)(9)(A) does not apply to a child’s biological mother; ground vacated. |
| Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supports termination under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(8)(B) (mental incompetence) | (Grandparents) Expert and lay testimony show Mother’s mental condition is so impaired and likely to remain so that she cannot resume care in the near future | (Mother) Evidence insufficient and trial court failed to make required written findings; due process violation | Court: Evidence presented may support (g)(8)(B) but final order lacked required specific findings; holding under (g)(8) vacated and remanded for written findings. |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest | (Grandparents) Termination and guardianship by Grandparents is in children’s best interest given Mother's impairments and visit incidents | (Mother) Termination not justified and court’s order lacks required findings to support best-interest determination | Court: Best-interest analysis cannot be reviewed because trial court failed to make statutorily required findings; remanded. |
| Whether the Grandparents’ counterclaim was procedurally defective under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(d)(3) | (Mother) Counterclaim lacks mandatory statutory language/verification re: putative father registry and effect language; petition therefore void | (Grandparents) Petition sufficiently informed Mother of the effects and named parties; omissions not fatal where Mother was sole parent at issue | Court: Counterclaim was not fatally defective; it sufficiently put Mother on notice and satisfied § 36-1-113(d)(3) requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (recognizing fundamental parental right to care, custody, and control of children)
- In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (standards for termination proceedings; statutory findings requirement under § 36-1-113(k))
- In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. 2010) (clear-and-convincing evidence standard in parental termination cases)
- State Dep’t of Children’s Servs. v. Mims, 285 S.W.3d 435 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (upholding (g)(8)(B) where parent’s impairment was lifelong and precluded effective parenting)
- In re D.A.H., 142 S.W.3d 267 (Tenn. 2004) (discussing constitutional due-process implications and need for individualized determinations in termination cases)