In Re Brianna B.
W2017-01181-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Dec 15, 2017Background
- Father (Shane B.) is the biological father of Brianna B. (b. Oct 2014). Mother died in a 2015 automobile accident in which Father (the driver) pled guilty to vehicular homicide and DUI; Father was seriously injured.
- Immediately after the accident Father gave physical custody to the maternal grandparents; grandparents later obtained legal custody and in August 2016 custody was awarded to the child’s maternal aunt and uncle, who live in Florida and intend to adopt.
- Father was arrested Oct 27, 2015, pled guilty, and was sentenced June 21, 2016 to an 11‑year prison term.
- Aunt and Uncle filed a petition (Feb 2017) to terminate Father’s parental rights asserting multiple grounds (including incarceration >10 years, abandonment by incarceration, failure to establish a suitable home, persistence of conditions).
- The juvenile court terminated Father’s rights on four statutory grounds and found termination was in the child’s best interest; on appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed termination on the single ground of incarceration with a sentence over ten years (Tenn. Code Ann. § 36‑1‑113(g)(6)) and on best interest, but reversed as to three other statutory grounds because the trial court’s findings or the record were insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Aunt & Uncle) | Defendant's Argument (Shane) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Validity of termination under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36‑1‑113(g)(6) (incarceration ≥10 yrs & child <8 at sentencing) | Father was sentenced to 11 years while child was under 8; this statutory ground is met | Father did not contest the factual predicate (sentence and child’s age) but stressed best‑interest considerations | Held: Affirmed — clear‑and‑convincing evidence supports this ground (Father’s 11‑yr sentence; child under 8 when sentenced) |
| 2) Abandonment by incarceration (Tenn. Code Ann. § 36‑1‑102(1)(A)(iv)) | Father was incarcerated at filing; alleged willful failure to visit/support or conduct pre‑incarceration showing wanton disregard | Father disputed best‑interest holding and emphasized prior relationship and future rehabilitation; did not contest incarceration factually | Held: Reversed — trial court’s order lacked specific factual findings to show willful failure to visit/support or pre‑incarceration wanton conduct; record insufficient |
| 3) Abandonment for failure to establish a suitable home (Tenn. Code Ann. § 36‑1‑102(1)(A)(ii)) | Child was removed and placed with relatives; petitioner claimed parent made no reasonable efforts and DCS/agency efforts were exhausted | Father argued he voluntarily relinquished physical custody due to injuries; child never placed in DCS custody | Held: Reversed — statutory text requires DCS or licensed agency custody and corresponding agency efforts; record contains no DCS custody or proof of agency efforts |
| 4) Persistence of conditions (Tenn. Code Ann. § 36‑1‑113(g)(3)) | Conditions that led to removal persist and the child cannot be safely returned; continuation impairs permanent placement | Father pointed to past involvement with child and future rehabilitation; contested sufficiency of evidence and procedural record | Held: Reversed — appellate record lacked the underlying juvenile orders adjudicating dependency/neglect and removal needed to sustain this ground |
| 5) Best interest of the child (statutory best‑interest factors) | Child is thriving with Aunt & Uncle, has stable home, extended support network, pre‑school, plans for adoption; change would be traumatic | Father argued termination was extreme, asserted love and past parenting, predicted earlier release and willingness to reform | Held: Affirmed — clear‑and‑convincing evidence supports that termination is in the child’s best interest (stability, bonded placement, trauma risk, adoptive placement available) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Carrington, 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (framework for appellate review and requirement to assess each statutory ground and best‑interest findings)
- In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (clear‑and‑convincing proof required for grounds and best‑interest determinations)
- In re Taylor B.W., 397 S.W.3d 105 (Tenn. 2013) (appellate standard for reviewing termination findings; de novo review of whether clear‑and‑convincing evidence supports termination)
- In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (definition of clear‑and‑convincing evidence)
- In re Adoption of A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793 (Tenn. 2007) (legal standard that sufficiency of facts supporting termination is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- In re Navada N., 498 S.W.3d 579 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016) (requirements for abandonment/suitable‑home analysis involving DCS/agency custody and assistance)
- In re Miracle M., [citation="(reported decision)" ] (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017) (discussing when parental misconduct may be redeemable and relevance to best interest)
(Note: the opinion also cites additional Tennessee decisions applying the heightened proof standard and statutory factors for best‑interest analysis.)