In Re C.J.B., M2016-01585-COA-R3-PT

Background

Two children (born 2006, 2009), both autistic, were removed from parental custody in 2014 after DCS found them locked in a bedroom with human feces on floor and walls; parents later pleaded guilty to felony child neglect.
DCS placed the children in temporary custody (Aug 2014) and developed repeated permanency plans requiring substance‑abuse and mental‑health assessments, random drug screens, domestic‑violence counseling, and other services.
Mother had multiple incarcerations (most recent release June 22, 2015); father received community corrections and had a history of prescription pain‑pill abuse and refusal to submit to drug screens.
DCS filed to terminate parental rights (Dec 17, 2015) alleging multiple statutory grounds against each parent and that termination was in the children’s best interest.
The juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights, finding clear and convincing evidence of (among other grounds) substantial noncompliance with permanency plans and persistence of conditions; the court also found abandonment by an incarcerated parent (mother) and severe child abuse (both), but later conceded some grounds on appeal.
The Court of Appeals affirmed termination as to two grounds for each parent (substantial noncompliance and persistence of conditions), but modified the judgment to vacate findings of abandonment by an incarcerated parent (mother) and severe child abuse (both). Termination was held to be in the children’s best interest.

Issues

Issue	DCS/State Argument	Parents' Argument	Held
Whether mother abandoned children as an incarcerated parent under Tenn. Code Ann. §36‑1‑102(1)(A)(iv)	Mother’s repeated incarcerations and delay in complying with plans evidenced abandonment	Mother argued incarcerations did not cover the relevant 4‑month statutory period	Court: No — mother was not incarcerated during the four months preceding the petition; abandonment ground vacated
Whether either parent committed "severe child abuse" under Tenn. Code Ann. §36‑1‑113(g)(4)	Convictions for felony child neglect constituted prima facie severe child abuse supporting termination	Parents relied on their convictions but contested that those convictions equated to statutory severe child abuse	Court: No — record lacked clear and convincing proof that conduct met §37‑1‑102(b)(22) definitions; severe‑abuse ground vacated
Whether each parent substantially noncomplied with permanency plans (Tenn. Code Ann. §36‑1‑113(g)(2))	DCS: parents largely failed to complete critical tasks (assessments, drug screens, counseling) and delayed compliance	Parents argued DCS failed to provide needed services or that belated completions should count	Court: Yes — clear and convincing evidence of substantial noncompliance for both parents; affirmed
Whether conditions that led to removal persisted, making return unsafe (Tenn. Code Ann. §36‑1‑113(g)(3))	DCS: ongoing substance abuse, criminal activity, lack of knowledge to care for autistic children, and repeated incarcerations persisted	Parents pointed to some home improvements and treatment completions as remedial changes	Court: Yes — conditions persisted and unlikely to be remedied in near future for both; affirmed
Whether termination is in children’s best interest (Tenn. Code Ann. §36‑1‑113(i))	DCS: parents failed to make lasting adjustments; children stable in foster care; adoption possible	Parents: physical home improvements and some program completion weigh against termination	Court: Yes — balancing statutory best‑interest factors favors termination for both parents; affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (recognizing parental right to custody is fundamental)
In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (termination requires statutory ground and best‑interest finding)
Nash‑Putnam v. McCloud, 921 S.W.2d 170 (Tenn. 1996) (parental rights are fundamental but not absolute)
Jones v. Garrett, 92 S.W.3d 835 (Tenn. 2002) (termination proceedings are statutory and limited to legislated grounds)
In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. 2010) (clear and convincing evidence standard explained)
In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (Tenn. 2002) (assessment of permanency‑plan noncompliance and weight of requirements)
In re Carrington, 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (appellate review standards for termination findings)