In re Dakota H., E2016-00036-COA-R3-PT

Children were removed from Father’s custody on August 13, 2010 for environmental neglect and because an older child (Dakota) exhibited sexually reactive behavior; they entered DCS custody and multiple permanency plans followed.
DCS provided extensive services over >5 years: in‑home services, non‑offender parenting classes, psychological evaluations, therapeutic/supervised visitation, housing assistance, and trial home visits.
Father repeatedly failed to provide DCS access to verify his home, maintained transient/one‑bedroom living arrangements, did not follow safety plans (e.g., door alarm), and was observed failing to supervise or stop inappropriate sexualized interactions among children.
Trial home placement in Dec. 2011 was disrupted (March 2012) after disclosures of sexual abuse; visits showed continued unsafe/sexualized conduct that Father did not control.
DCS filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights in March 2015; after a bench trial the juvenile court found two statutory grounds proved (abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home; persistence of conditions) and that termination was in the children’s best interest.
On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s findings and the termination of Father’s parental rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination is in the children’s best interest	DCS: Father has not made lasting adjustments; children are bonded to foster parents; Dakota needs specialized residential treatment Father cannot provide	Father: trial court erred — termination not in children’s best interest	Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence termination served children’s best interest
Whether Father abandoned the children by failure to provide a suitable home (Tenn. Code Ann. § 36‑1‑102(1)(A)(ii) / § 36‑1‑113(g)(1))	DCS: despite reasonable efforts over >4 months and years, Father made no reasonable efforts and showed lack of concern; housing unsuitable and safety plans violated	Father: did not contest this ground on appeal	Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home
Whether conditions leading to removal persisted (Tenn. Code Ann. § 36‑1‑113(g)(3))	DCS: conditions (environmental neglect, inability to supervise, permitting inappropriate sexual contact) persisted for >6 months and not likely remedied soon	Father: did not contest this ground on appeal	Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence conditions persisted and impeded safe return

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (termination of parental rights requires heightened proof—clear and convincing evidence)
In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. 2010) (clarifying clear and convincing standard and requirement to prove both grounds and best interest)
In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (appellate review obligations in parental termination cases)
In re F.R.R., III, 193 S.W.3d 528 (Tenn. 2006) (standard for appellate review of termination findings)
White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994) (best‑interest focus shifts to child after grounds proved)