In Re: Braxton M.
531 S.W.3d 708
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Children (Braxton and Briley) were removed from parents in 2011 after Briley was born drug-exposed and placed with maternal grandparents; mother later surrendered parental rights and is not on appeal.
- Father (Kevin M.) has a history of substance abuse and criminal convictions with intermittent incarcerations; last visit with the children was May 11, 2014.
- Maternal grandparents filed to terminate parental rights and adopt on April 15, 2015; trial courts found Father indigent, appointed counsel and a GAL, and held a bench trial in 2016.
- Trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, grounds to terminate Father’s rights for abandonment by willful failure to support and willful failure to visit (Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(1)); court also treated Father as a putative father and applied § 36-1-113(g)(9)(A)(iv)-(v).
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed termination based on abandonment (failure to support and visit) and best-interest findings, but reversed the trial court’s application of § 36-1-113(g)(9)(A)(iv)-(v) because the petition predated a statutory amendment and controlling precedent forbids applying those § 36-1-113(g)(9) grounds to putative fathers under the prior statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Maternal Grandparents) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Willful failure to financially support during 4‑month determinative period | Father had means when not incarcerated and provided only token support; willful failure to make reasonable payments | Father lacked adequate notice, no court support order, and did not prove ability to pay | Held: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence of willful failure to support (token support, discretionary spending on drugs) |
| 2. Willful failure to visit during determinative period | Father ceased visits after May 11, 2014, made only limited Facebook contact and did not pursue court enforcement or other meaningful attempts | Father argued maternal grandparents ignored messages and impeded contact; claimed "disappearance" and substance problems | Held: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence of willful failure to visit (minimal effort, no justifiable excuse) |
| 3. Putative vs. legal father status and application of § 36-1-113(g)(9)(A)(iv)-(v) | Grandparents treated Father as putative and applied § 36-1-113(g)(9)(A) grounds | Father disputed putative designation and argued trial misapplied § 36-1-113(g)(9)(A) | Held: Father is a putative father; court erred to apply the post‑petition amended § 36-1-113(g)(9)(A); under controlling pre‑amendment precedent those § 36-1-113(g)(9) grounds do not apply to putative fathers — reversed on this point |
| 4. Best interest of the children | Termination is in children’s best interest given Father’s inconsistent contact, criminal and drug history, unsafe environment, and strong stable placement with grandparents | Father argued prior bond, potential for future rehabilitation, and unfairness if mother remains in children’s lives | Held: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence termination served children’s best interest (factors weighed in favor of grandparents) |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (requires heightened proof—clear and convincing—before terminating parental rights)
- In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. 2010) (limits application of § 36-1-113(g)(9) grounds and explains who may be subject to those grounds)
- In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (discusses standard of review and burdens in parental‑termination appeals)
- In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (explains willfulness and token support in abandonment analysis)
- In re Alysia S., 460 S.W.3d 536 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) (analyzed parent’s income/expenses in support determinations)
- Matter of M.L.P., 281 S.W.3d 387 (Tenn. 2009) (addresses when third‑party conduct excuses failure to visit or support)