In Re Billy T.W.
E2016-02298-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Sep 27, 2017Background
- Parents (Christy A.W. and Billy T.W.) have two children removed April 17, 2015 after DCS referrals for parental drug use, unclean/unsafe home, and inadequate care of a child with a feeding tube; DCS obtained temporary custody and a permanency plan.
- Permanency plan (May 2015) required treatment, random drug screens and pill counts, stable housing/income/transportation, parenting classes, visitation, mental-health evaluation, and cooperation with DCS; parents made partial/uneven progress and had multiple arrests and positive drug screens.
- DCS filed a petition to terminate parental rights February 4, 2016 asserting five grounds: abandonment (failure to visit — Father only), abandonment (failure to provide suitable home), substantial noncompliance with permanency plan, persistence of conditions, and wanton disregard (Mother only).
- At bench trial the only witness was a DCS representative; trial court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate both parents’ rights on all grounds except wanton disregard, and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed termination as to failure to provide a suitable home, substantial noncompliance, persistence of conditions, and best interests, but reversed the trial court’s finding that Father willfully abandoned the children by failure to visit during the four months before the termination petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father willfully abandoned by failing to visit during the 4 months before filing | Father had notice and capacity to visit; he failed to visit in person and DCS contacted him about visits | Father relocated to Louisiana for work and maintained weekly phone contact; DCS did not facilitate out-of-state visits | Reversed — DCS failed to prove willful abandonment by failure to visit (phone contact and relocation undercut willfulness) |
| Whether parents abandoned by failing to provide a suitable home (4 months after removal) | DCS made reasonable efforts; parents made no reasonable efforts and demonstrated lack of concern (drug use, arrests, unstable housing) | Parents contend DCS failed to provide assistance and they briefly secured housing | Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supports abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home for both parents |
| Whether parents substantially noncomplied with the permanency plan | Parents failed to comply with key, weighted requirements (treatment, drug screens, housing, parenting classes, verification of income/visits) | Parents claim partial progress and efforts toward reunification | Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence of substantial noncompliance for both parents |
| Whether conditions that led to removal persist and prevent safe return (persistence of conditions) | Continued instability, unresolved criminal issues, drug noncompliance, and lack of cooperation make return unsafe and unlikely soon | Mother argues lack of proof of ongoing substance abuse at trial; parents point to improvements | Affirmed in part — court found insufficient proof of ongoing substance abuse for Mother at trial but overall persistence of conditions proven (other factors) and ground supports termination for both parents |
| Whether termination is in children’s best interests | Continuation with parents would delay permanence given criminal activity, instability, drug issues, poor compliance, and bond with foster parents | Parents argue DCS failed reasonable efforts and cite some progress and phone contact (Father) | Affirmed — court found termination is in the children’s best interests for both parents |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest)
- Nash-Putnam v. McCloud, 921 S.W.2d 170 (Tenn. 1996) (state may terminate parental rights when compelling interest exists)
- In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (Tenn. 2002) (standards for substantial noncompliance with permanency plan)
- State Dep’t of Children’s Servs. v. A.M.H., 198 S.W.3d 757 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (heightened proof standard in termination cases)
- In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (willfulness standard for abandonment and persistence-of-conditions focus)
- In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533 (Tenn. 2015) (reasonable efforts and proofs required for certain statutory grounds)
- In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (parental rights and constitutional considerations)
- In re Adoption of Angela E., 402 S.W.3d 636 (Tenn. 2013) (willfulness requires capacity, attempt, and lack of justifiable excuse)