In Re: Colby L.
E2016-01785-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | May 24, 2017Background
- Child Colby L., born June 2005; Georgia court awarded custody to Father in 2011; Mother's visitation was supervised while she lived with a third party.
- Supervised visits ceased in August 2012 after the child expressed he did not want to continue visiting Mother; Mother has not had meaningful contact since then and concedes no visits or support in the four months before the 2015 termination petition.
- Father and Stepmother filed to terminate Mother's parental rights (April 23, 2015) and sought Stepmother's adoption; guardian ad litem was appointed.
- Trial court found Mother willfully failed to visit and willfully failed to support Colby for the statutory four-month period, found termination was in the child’s best interest, and terminated Mother's parental rights (Aug. 3, 2016).
- Mother appealed, arguing her failures were not willful, that she attempted to contact the child and obtain counsel, and that she was impeded from visiting prior to the four-month statutory period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Willful abandonment by failure to visit (Tenn. Code Ann. §36-1-102(1)(A)(i)) | Mother: She made attempts to contact/visit (school visits, church attempt, communications, sought lawyers) and was discouraged/impeded from arranging visits, so failure was not willful. | Petitioners: Mother made no visits for years, admitted no visits in the critical four-month period, and produced no corroborating evidence of attempts; credibility issues. | Trial court and appellate court: Held Mother willfully failed to visit; credibility findings supported by record. |
| Willful abandonment by failure to support (Tenn. Code Ann. §36-1-102(1)(A)(i)) | Mother: Limited education, lack of skills, legal blindness, and attempted but failed money mailings/savings account show inability rather than willfulness. | Petitioners: Mother worked at times, had other income sources, admitted duty to support and ability to work; offered no proof of attempted payments. | Held Mother willfully failed to support; evidence showed capacity and lack of justification. |
| Best interest of the child (Tenn. Code Ann. §36-1-113(i) factors) | Mother: (implicit) termination not necessary; no lasting adjustment shown. | Petitioners: Child is stable, thriving, attached to Father/Stepmother; Petitioners provide care, education, extracurricular support; change would harm child. | Held termination is in child’s best interest based on stability, attachment, and Mother’s mental/emotional issues and past conduct. |
| Whether pre-four-month interference justified non-contact | Mother: Earlier interference discouraged efforts and impeded visitation attempts; trial court failed to analyze this. | Petitioners: Any prior conduct did not prevent Mother's ability to visit or support during the statutory period; Mother made no verified legal efforts. | Held trial court implicitly considered credibility and evidence; no reversible error—no justification shown for the statutory period. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (parental rights are fundamental)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (heightened proof required to terminate parental rights)
- Osborn v. Marr, 127 S.W.3d 737 (Tenn. 2004) (statutory authority required to terminate parental rights)
- In re Adoption of A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793 (Tenn. 2007) (standards for termination and best-interest analysis)
- In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (definition and discussion of willfulness in abandonment context)
- Jones v. Garrett, 92 S.W.3d 835 (Tenn. 2002) (only statutory grounds permit termination)
- In re M.L.P., 228 S.W.3d 139 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (deference to trial court credibility findings)