In Re Brendan G.
M2019-00081-COA-R3-PT
Tenn. Ct. App.Oct 9, 2019Background
- Child born in Sept. 2012 to Mother (Tabitha); Father (Daniel D.) was not listed on the birth certificate and never legitimate d the child.
- Mother married Stepfather (Tyler) in 2016; Mother and Stepfather (the Petitioners) filed to terminate Father's parental rights and for Stepfather's adoption in Sept. 2017.
- Petition alleged multiple statutory grounds including failure to establish/exercise paternity, severe child abuse (against another child), and Father’s sentence of >2 years for aggravated child abuse; Father pleaded guilty and is serving an 8-year sentence.
- Evidence showed limited contact after the child's infancy (last visit ~2013); Father and paternal family provided some monetary/items but Father did not pursue court-ordered paternity/visitation and has violent-crime and drug-history; Mother testified she blocked Father after threats.
- Trial court denied willful-abandonment claim (finding Mother's actions impeded contact) but found clear and convincing proof of (g)(9) failure to establish/exercise paternity, (g)(4) severe child abuse (based on prior conviction), and (g)(5) sentence ≥2 years; termination was held to be in the child's best interest.
- Court of Appeals affirmed: statutory grounds and best-interest finding supported by clear and convincing evidence; case remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Failure to establish/exercise paternity (Tenn. Code Ann. §36-1-113(g)(9)) | Father failed to legitimate, seek reasonable visitation, or manifest willingness to assume custody; poses risk to child | Father says he attempted visits/support but Mother denied access and thwarted his efforts | Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supports termination under g(9) (failure to establish/exercise paternity; risk to welfare) |
| B. Severe child abuse (g)(4) | Termination may be based on Father’s prior conviction for aggravated child abuse of another child | Father pled guilty but denies committing the abuse; did not appeal conviction | Affirmed — prior conviction is final and constitutes clear and convincing proof of severe child abuse |
| C. Sentence ≥2 years for severe child abuse (g)(5) | Father was sentenced to 8 years for severe child abuse of a child he lived with; statutory ground met | Father did not contest the sentencing ground on appeal | Affirmed — imposition of an 8-year sentence satisfies g(5) (sentence need not be served to qualify) |
| D. Best interest of the child (§36-1-113(i)) | Termination is necessary for permanency/stability; Child bonded with Stepfather; Father incarcerated and has violent history | Father asserts love, rehabilitation, and intent to parent when released | Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence termination is in child’s best interest (incarceration, violent history, need for stability) |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (parental custody is a fundamental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (heightened proof — clear and convincing — required before terminating parental rights)
- M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996) (termination of parental rights is a grave, irreversible action)
- In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (appellate standard of review in termination cases; de novo review of legal conclusions; review factual findings de novo with presumption of correctness)
- In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (Tenn. 2002) (clear-and-convincing standard applies to both statutory grounds and best-interest determination)
- In re C.W.W., 37 S.W.3d 467 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (a single statutory ground is sufficient to support termination)
- Blair v. Badenhope, 77 S.W.3d 137 (Tenn. 2002) (parental rights are superior but not absolute)
- In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533 (Tenn. 2015) (DCS reunification efforts inform but are not a precondition to termination)