In Re: Delilah G.
E2016-01107-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Feb 22, 2017Background
- Child (Delilah) born June 2012; DCS first involved for in utero marijuana exposure and later for failure to thrive/medical maltreatment.
- Multiple interventions: services provided twice; child again failed to thrive and was removed to DCS custody in Feb. 2014 and has remained in foster care since.
- Juvenile court held a June 5, 2014 adjudicatory/severe-abuse hearing and found, by clear and convincing evidence, that both parents committed severe child abuse for failing to provide sufficient calories, follow medical directions, and attend appointments, causing failure to thrive and risk of serious injury.
- DCS petitioned to terminate parental rights (June 2015) on grounds including severe abuse; after multi-day termination hearing, the trial court terminated Mother’s rights based on the prior severe-abuse finding and held termination was in the child’s best interest.
- Mother appealed only the severe-abuse finding and the best-interest determination; she did not appeal the earlier severe-abuse adjudication and did not raise timeliness of the nunc pro tunc entry in the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother committed severe child abuse under Tenn. Code Ann. §36-1-113(g)(4) (prior court finding) | Mother argued the December 17, 2014 order was entered nunc pro tunc and record is silent about notice of entry, implying possible procedural defect and contestability | DCS argued the severe-abuse adjudication was final, fully litigated, and Mother did not preserve any challenge below | Court held Mother waived the argument by failing to raise it below; prior severe-abuse adjudication is final and supports termination. |
| Whether termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest under Tenn. Code Ann. §36-1-113(c) | Mother pointed to her progress and improvements in compliance and argued termination was unnecessary | DCS emphasized child’s medical fragility, foster parents’ successful specialized care, and risk that Mother cannot meet the child’s medical/feeding needs | Court held, by clear and convincing evidence, termination was in Delilah’s best interest given medical needs, foster placement stability, and severe-abuse findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (heightened evidentiary standard for termination of parental rights)
- In re Adoption of A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793 (Tenn. rule that termination requires statutory ground proved by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re D.L.B., 118 S.W.3d 360 (only one statutory ground need be proved to terminate parental rights)
- White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187 (best-interest inquiry is child-centered and fact-intensive)