In Re Da'Vante M.
M2017-00989-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- DCS removed three children (b. 2001, 2002, 2003) from Father’s custody in July 2015 after reports that the maternal grandfather (a previously substantiated sexual abuser of one child) was residing/associating with Father and the children; children were adjudicated dependent and neglected.
- Permanency plans required Father to obtain suitable housing, complete psychological and parenting assessments, follow mental-health recommendations, and attend non‑offender training; DCS provided referrals and scheduling assistance but Father did not complete recommended treatment or training.
- During the four‑month period after removal (July–Nov 2015) Father failed to secure appropriate housing and did not complete required assessments’ recommendations; by trial he was homeless, had not visited the children since June 2016, and had not completed needed services.
- DCS filed to terminate Father’s parental rights in Sept 2016; the Juvenile Court terminated rights in Mar 2017 on three statutory grounds (failure to provide suitable home/abandonment, substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, and persistent conditions) and found termination was in the children’s best interest.
- Father appealed, raising challenges to each statutory ground, to the best‑interest finding, and alleging DCS failed to make reasonable efforts; DCS raised a jurisdictional challenge to the unsigned notice of appeal.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: held DCS’s efforts were reasonable for the abandonment ground, the three statutory grounds were established by clear and convincing evidence, and termination was in the children’s best interest; also held counsel’s signature on the notice of appeal sufficed for jurisdiction per controlling Supreme Court authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (DCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father failed to provide a suitable home (abandonment via Tenn. Code Ann. § 36‑1‑102(1)(A)(ii)) | Father claims he made reasonable efforts during the four‑month period (attendance at meetings, some visits, intake) and DCS assistance was limited | DCS contends Father did not remedy the core safety issue (protecting children from grandfather), did not complete assessments’ recommendations, and lacked stable housing | Held: Ground proven by clear and convincing evidence; DCS’s efforts exceeded Father’s and Father failed to provide a suitable home |
| Whether Father substantially noncomplied with permanency plans (Tenn. Code Ann. § 36‑1‑113(g)(2)) | Father argues cognitive/communication difficulties and inadequate assistance from DCS impeded completion of specialized training | DCS argues Father failed to satisfy key plan requirements (housing, completing mental‑health/parenting recommendations) | Held: Ground proven by clear and convincing evidence; critical plan tasks were reasonable and Father substantially noncomplied |
| Whether persistent conditions exist preventing return (Tenn. Code Ann. § 36‑1‑113(g)(3)) | Father argues conditions (e.g., grandfather’s presence) were not shown to persist | DCS argues underlying conditions (Father’s failure to protect, incomplete treatment, homelessness) remain and are unlikely to be remedied soon | Held: Ground proven by clear and convincing evidence; conditions persist and unlikely to be remedied in near future |
| Whether termination is in the children’s best interest | Father emphasizes love for children and willingness to improve | DCS points to lack of housing, lack of meaningful contact, failure to address protection/mental‑health issues, and children’s thriving in foster care | Held: Termination is in children’s best interest by clear and convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognizes parental custody as a fundamental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (requires heightened proof—clear and convincing—in termination cases)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (parental rights as fundamental liberty interest)
- Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of Durham Cnty., N.C., 452 U.S. 18 (due process protections in parental‑rights proceedings)
- In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (procedural and proof standards in Tennessee termination cases)
- In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (discusses appellate standard and clear‑and‑convincing proof)
- In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Court of Appeals must review each statutory ground and best‑interest finding)
- In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533 (reasonable efforts by DCS weigh in best‑interest analysis; abandonment ground is exception requiring review of DCS efforts)