In re Casyn B.
M2016-01958-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | May 26, 2017Background
- Children Casyn (b. 2010) and Cayden (b. 2012) were adjudicated dependent and neglected after DCS removal in Dec. 2013; mother later surrendered her rights. Father was legitimated as Cayden’s father.
- Multiple permanency plans (2014–2015) required Father to address substance abuse, follow parole, obtain housing/employment, complete parenting classes, submit to random drug screens, and attend visitation.
- Father was incarcerated Feb 2014–Sep 2015, released, then re-arrested and incarcerated again Feb 2016; while out he failed drug tests, used illegal drugs, incurred new criminal charges, and had minimal participation in reunification services and visits.
- DCS filed to terminate Father’s parental rights May 2016 on grounds: substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan and abandonment by conduct showing wanton disregard; it also alleged termination was in the children’s best interests.
- Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Father substantially failed to comply with the plan, engaged in pre-incarceration conduct evidencing wanton disregard for the children’s welfare, and that termination was in the children’s best interests. Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | DCS (Plaintiff) Argument | Father (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father substantially noncomplied with the permanency plan | Father failed to address substance abuse, violated parole, incurred new criminal charges, missed services and visits — noncompliance is substantial | Father contends he substantially complied overall given indigency and made reasonable efforts on substance abuse, housing, employment, visitation | Affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence of substantial noncompliance |
| Whether Father’s pre-incarceration conduct evidenced wanton disregard (abandonment) | Father’s long record of criminality, repeated incarcerations, probation/parole violations, and substance abuse show a pattern demonstrating wanton disregard for children’s welfare | Father argues many offenses were property/drug misdemeanors and do not necessarily endanger children | Affirmed: aggregated pattern of criminal conduct and substance abuse constituted wanton disregard |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interests | Children have significant medical/behavioral needs met in stable foster home; Father lacks stable housing, sobriety, and meaningful relationship; continued instability would harm children | Father claims he met many plan requirements and sought reunification | Affirmed: best-interest factors weigh in favor of termination |
| Standard of review / sufficiency of evidence | Grounds and best-interest must be proved by clear and convincing evidence; appellate review is de novo with presumption for trial court findings where supported | Father challenges sufficiency; asks de novo review to reverse | Court applied heightened standard and found evidence met clear-and-convincing threshold; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (recognizes parental fundamental right to custody)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (requires heightened proof in parental termination proceedings)
- In re Adoption of A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793 (Tenn.) (statutory framework for termination and best-interest requirement)
- In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn.) (permanency-plan compliance must be reasonable and remedy conditions that led to foster care)
- In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (minor deviations do not equal substantial compliance)
- In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (Tenn.) (standard for substantial noncompliance review)
- White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (best-interest inquiry viewed from the child’s perspective)