In Re Brennen T.
M2016-01639-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Child born Nov 2009; paternal relatives (Petitioners) obtained custody when child was ~10 months old in Sept 2010 and have cared for him continuously since.
- Parents (Mother Nicole S. F.; Father Kenneth E. T.) retained limited weekly one-hour supervised visits at McDonald’s and engaged in protracted litigation including a prior termination proceeding and ancillary tort claims.
- Petitioners filed a second termination petition (Apr 20, 2015) alleging abandonment for failure to visit and to remit child support; trial was held May 18, 2016.
- During the relevant four-month window preceding the petition, neither parent paid monetary child support; parents sporadically provided gifts/food at visits and had intermittent employment, housing instability, and substance/mental health concerns.
- Trial court found clear and convincing evidence of abandonment for willful failure to remit support, but not for failure to visit; it further found termination was in the child’s best interest. Parents appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioners' Argument | Parents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clear & convincing evidence supports termination for abandonment (willful failure to remit support) | Parents wilfully failed to provide monetary support for 4 consecutive months and longer; token gifts insufficient | Gifts/food and occasional assistance show support; unemployment made nonpayment not willful | Affirmed: clear & convincing evidence of willful failure to remit support; gifts were token given parents’ means |
| Whether clear & convincing evidence supports termination for abandonment (failure to visit) | Parents missed visits and didn’t seek additional court-ordered time | Parents attended most visits (Mother missed only a few); visitation record inconclusive | Reversed as to this ground: court correctly found insufficient evidence of willful failure to visit |
| Whether termination is in child’s best interest | Child has stable, adoptive-ready home; parental instability, substance use, mental-health issues, and litigation harmed child | Parents love child and sought contact; ongoing litigation and disruption were stressed by Petitioners | Affirmed: multiple statutory best-interest factors favor termination and child’s need for permanency outweighs parents’ interests |
| Whether trial court erred in denying Rule 60 relief in prior proceeding / injunctive relief about postings | Petitioners sought review and injunction regarding parents’ conduct/posts | Parents opposed | Not reached/subsumed: pretermitted by affirmance of termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (parental custody is a fundamental liberty interest)
- M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996) (severance of parental rights is grave and final)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (heightened burden of proof in parental termination cases)
- In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (appellate review standards in termination cases)
- In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (must prove statutory grounds and best interest by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re C.W.W., 37 S.W.3d 467 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (one statutory ground suffices to support termination)
- Means v. Ashby, 130 S.W.3d 48 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (termination irreversibly severs parental rights)