In Re Douglas H., M2016-02400-COA-R3-CV

Background

Mother has a long history of substance abuse (methamphetamine) and pleaded guilty to permitting her home to be used for meth manufacture after law enforcement found an active meth lab in her residence while her son Douglas was present.
DCS removed Douglas (Oct. 2014) and later Tailor (Aug. 2015, removed at birth after Mother tested positive for methamphetamine) and placed both with petitioners Jeffrey and Jessica P. under Immediate Protection Agreements.
Petitioners filed for termination of Mother’s parental rights (Douglas: original petition June 4, 2015; amended Dec. 16, 2015; Tailor: May 18, 2016; amended June 21, 2016). Cases were consolidated for trial in Sept. 2016.
Trial evidence: clandestine-lab expert testified the residence was contaminated and Douglas was present; Mother admitted prenatal meth use and testing positive at Tailor’s birth; Mother had sporadic visitation, inconsistent drug treatment compliance, unstable housing/employment, and some recent claimed improvement.
Trial court terminated Mother’s rights on multiple statutory grounds (abandonment—failure to visit/support—and severe child abuse) and found termination was in the children’s best interest. On appeal the court affirmed termination on at least one ground for each child but reversed several abandonment findings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether grounds exist to terminate Mother’s rights for Douglas based on abandonment (willful failure to visit/support)	Petitioners: Mother failed to visit or support Douglas in relevant four-month periods before petitions, showing willful abandonment.	Mother: incarceration in Texas during part of the relevant period and other circumstances preclude using subsection (i); evidence insufficient to show willful failure to support.	Court: Reversed the abandonment findings for Douglas. Subsection (i) inapplicable where parent was incarcerated; insufficient proof of willful failure to support/visit for the periods relied on.
Whether grounds exist to terminate Mother’s rights for Tailor based on abandonment (willful failure to visit)	Petitioners: Mother’s visits were token/infrequent during the four months before the petition; failed drug-screen conditions prevented visits she could have complied with.	Mother: visitation limited by DCS conditions and transportation; claimed barriers to regular visits.	Court: Affirmed abandonment for Tailor by willful failure to visit (visits token and Mother failed to take required steps).
Whether grounds exist to terminate Mother’s rights for Tailor based on abandonment (willful failure to support)	Petitioners: Mother provided no financial support for Tailor during the relevant period.	Mother: intermittent employment, criminal record and probation limits hindered earning/reporting income; Petitioners failed to prove capacity to pay.	Court: Reversed termination based on willful failure to support for Tailor (insufficient evidence of ability and willfulness).
Whether severe child abuse (manufacturing/exposure to meth or prenatal drug use) is established for each child	Petitioners: Mother exposed Douglas to an active meth lab in the home and used meth prenatally with Tailor — both constitute severe child abuse under § 37-1-102 definitions.	Mother: argued lack of proof of direct exposure/harm to Douglas and lack of demonstrated harm to Tailor in utero.	Court: Affirmed severe child abuse as to Douglas (present in home with active meth lab) and as to Tailor (prenatal meth use and newborn medical problems); also affirmed severe-abuse termination for Tailor based on abuse to sibling Douglas.
Whether termination is in the children’s best interest	Petitioners: Children are bonded to petitioners, are in a stable home, Mother remains unstable and noncompliant with services and support.	Mother: recent improvements (sobriety, employment) argue against termination and for reunification.	Court: Affirmed best-interest finding — Mother had not achieved stable, lasting adjustment; visitation and relationship were minimal; parental deficiencies likely detrimental.

Key Cases Cited

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (recognition of fundamental parental rights)
In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (parental-rights termination standards)
Nash-Putnam v. McCloud, 921 S.W.2d 170 (Tenn. 1996) (parental rights and state interest)
In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (Tenn. 2002) (any one statutory ground suffices for termination)
In re Adoption of Angela E., 402 S.W.3d 636 (Tenn. 2013) (willfulness standard for abandonment—capacity and lack of justification)
In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (clear-and-convincing standard in termination cases)
In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (willfulness in abandonment analysis)