In Re Casey C.
M2016-01344-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2016Background
- Three children removed in 2010–2013 after DCS investigations showing environmental neglect and Mother’s drug/alcohol impairment; children adjudicated dependent and neglected in Nov. 2013.
- Mother lived with Father despite warnings; Father was accused of sexually abusing one child, and DCS prohibited contact between Father and the children.
- DCS developed permanency plans, offered services (job leads, transportation, parenting classes, drug/alcohol treatment, assistance with disability forms); Mother repeatedly failed to engage or follow through.
- Throughout the dependency period Mother tested positive for cocaine multiple times, had unstable housing, minimal employment (three-week job in 2015), and provided only token support to the children.
- Trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights (April 4, 2016) on grounds of: willful failure to support; failure to provide a suitable home; and persistence of the conditions leading to removal; court also found termination was in the children’s best interests.
- Court of Appeals affirmed, finding DCS made reasonable efforts and there was clear-and-convincing evidence supporting each ground and the best-interest determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother willfully failed to support (4‑month period) | Mother knowingly had a duty to support, had capacity to do so, but provided only token support and prioritized cigarettes/drugs over children | Lack of income/physical disability (car wreck years earlier) made nonpayment not willful; she gave occasional small gifts | Held: Willful failure to support proved; token payments insufficient and evidence showed capacity and choices inconsistent with inability to support |
| Whether Mother abandoned by failure to provide a suitable home (4 months after removal) | DCS made reasonable efforts; Mother made no reasonable efforts to secure housing or income and continued to live with Father (the alleged abuser) | Mother attempted housing applications and lacked resources without Father; DCS didn’t sufficiently help | Held: DCS made reasonable efforts; Mother failed to provide suitable home and showed lack of concern by remaining with Father and not securing income |
| Whether persistence of conditions warranted termination (statutory §36‑1‑113(g)(3)) | Conditions (drug use, no income, unsuitable housing, risk from Father) that led to removal persisted and were unlikely to be remedied soon | Mother asked for more time to address addiction and housing; argued potential for improvement | Held: Conditions persisted for the statutory period with little likelihood of prompt remedy; ground proven |
| Whether termination is in the children’s best interests | Children are bonded to foster parents, have thrived in placement; Mother has not made lasting adjustments, continues drug use, unstable housing, provides token support | Mother asserted she needed time (six months) to address problems and reunify | Held: Termination is in children’s best interests based on statutory factors (safety, stability, lack of meaningful parent–child relationship, ongoing substance abuse, failure to adjust) |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parental custody is a fundamental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (heightened burden of proof in termination proceedings)
- Nash‑Putnam v. McCloud, 921 S.W.2d 170 (Tenn. 1996) (state’s interest may justify interference with parental rights under statutory framework)
- In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (Tenn. 2002) (termination requires both statutory ground and best‑interest showing)
- In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (definition of clear and convincing evidence in termination context)
- In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (interpretation of abandonment and reasonable‑efforts principles)
- In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (review all grounds relied on by trial court to avoid remands)
- In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533 (Tenn. 2015) (proof of reasonable efforts is not a precondition to termination; reasonable efforts proven by preponderance)
- In re Adoption of Angela E., 402 S.W.3d 636 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (token support doctrine and parental ability/means analysis)
- White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994) (best‑interest factors for termination)