In Re Charles A.
E2016-01757-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Mar 24, 2017Background
- Child born May 2010 to Mother (Olivia B.) and Father; child lived mostly with paternal aunt and uncle (Appellees) since 2011 and continuously since October 2014 after Mother’s DUI arrest with the child in the car.
- Juvenile Court entered a Temporary Order (Oct. 6, 2014) granting Appellees temporary custody and stating the child was dependent and neglected; record contains no adjudicatory order from a juvenile-court adjudication.
- Appellees filed to terminate parental rights (May 7, 2015) alleging abandonment (willful failure to visit and support) and persistence of conditions; Mother defended and was appointed counsel and a guardian ad litem was appointed for the child.
- Trial held May 23, 2016; trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights on both grounds and found termination was in the child’s best interest; Mother appealed.
- Court of Appeals reversed the persistence-of-conditions ground because only a temporary (preliminary) juvenile-court order existed, but affirmed termination for abandonment (willful failure to support and visit) and affirmed best-interest finding.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Appellees’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination could be based on persistence of conditions (Tenn. Code §36-1-113(g)(3)) | Mother argued juvenile temporary order insufficient to support that ground | Appellees relied on juvenile temporary order and child’s removal circumstances | Reversed: persistence of conditions requires a prior adjudicatory finding of dependency/neglect; temporary order was not enough (In re Audrey S.) |
| Abandonment — willful failure to support (Tenn. Code §36-1-102(1)(A)(i)) | Mother said no support obligation absent a court order and lacked means (unemployed/disabled) | Appellees showed Mother made no payments, lived with family, had capacity for occasional work, and knew obligation | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence Mother willfully failed to support during statutory 4-month period |
| Abandonment — willful failure to visit (Tenn. Code §36-1-102(1)(A)(i)) | Mother claimed she tried to contact Appellees and they did not respond | Appellees testified Mother made no contact after October 2014 and did not seek court-ordered visitation | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence of willful failure to visit in 4-month period before filing |
| Best interest of the child (Tenn. Code §36-1-113(i)) | Mother argued she completed treatment and is improving; opposed termination | Appellees and GAL emphasized child’s strong bond with Appellees, Mother’s instability, substance history, lack of support/visits | Affirmed: trial court’s findings supported termination as in child’s best interest (stability, bond with Appellees, Mother’s relapse/instability) |
| Denial of continuance and admission of contested testimony | Mother argued continuance denied prevented submission of treatment documents and that some Appellees’ testimony was inadmissible | Appellees/ court said documents likely irrelevant to abandonment claims; testimony largely corroborated and limited by court | Affirmed: denial not an abuse of discretion; evidentiary rulings not reversible error (or harmless due to corroboration) |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (parental custody is a fundamental right)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (heightened proof required to terminate parental rights)
- In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (pivotal holding that temporary/preliminary juvenile orders are insufficient to support persistence-of-conditions termination ground)
- In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (courts should review all termination grounds relied upon to avoid unnecessary remands)
- In re Jacobe M.J., 434 S.W.3d 565 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (parental obligation to support exists independent of a court order)
- Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82 (Tenn. 2001) (abuse-of-discretion standard for continuance and discretionary rulings)