In Re Elijah R., E2020-01520-COA-R3-PT

Background

Elijah born Aug. 2016 to unmarried parents; parents used Subutex/Suboxone and marijuana and separated after domestic incidents in Feb. 2018; mother physically removed the child and obtained a temporary protection order.
DCS opened a dependency-and-neglect matter, an immediate protection agreement placed Elijah with maternal aunt and uncle, and a juvenile court adjudicated Elijah dependent and neglected in Sept. 2018.
Father (Brian) lived with his parents, had supervised weekend visits, was ordered to complete parenting classes, drug screens, and child support but repeatedly refused non-urine screens and paid no voluntary support.
Aunt and Uncle filed a chancery petition to terminate both parents’ rights and adopt Elijah in June 2019; mother later surrendered her rights and joined the petition.
The chancery court found two statutory grounds (persistence of conditions and failure to manifest ability/willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113) and that termination was in Elijah’s best interest; it terminated father’s rights.
On appeal the court reversed the persistent-conditions ground (statutory threshold not met) but affirmed termination based on failure to manifest willingness/ability (g(14)) and best-interest findings and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of "persistent conditions" (Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(3))	Petitioners: Elijah was removed by court orders connected to a D&N proceeding for the requisite period, so the ground applies.	Father: Child was already living with Aunt/Uncle before the D&N petition and was never removed from Father’s home or legal custody by the juvenile court at the relevant time; statute’s threshold not met.	Reversed: ground inapplicable—child was not removed from Father’s home or his physical/legal custody by a juvenile-court order after a D&N petition.
Failure to manifest ability/willingness (Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(14))	Petitioners: Father failed to show he would personally assume custody or financial responsibility and placing the child with him posed substantial risk.	Father: He maintained regular visitation, is bonded with child, and intended to assume custody; DCS provided limited services.	Affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence that Father failed to manifest willingness to assume financial responsibility and that placing the child with him posed substantial risk (drug use, instability).
Best interest of the child	Petitioners: Termination is in Elijah’s best interest given his stability and progress with Aunt/Uncle versus Father’s instability and ongoing substance use.	Father: Strong parent-child bond and visits, termination would harm Elijah emotionally.	Affirmed: considering statutory factors, evidence supports that termination serves Elijah’s best interest (stability, regression after visits, father’s lack of remedial change).

Key Cases Cited

In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533 (Tenn. 2015) (statutory framework for termination proceedings)
In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. 2010) (clear-and-convincing evidence standard explained)
In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (prior interpretation of persistent-conditions threshold)
In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (appellate standard of review in termination cases)
In re Neveah M., 614 S.W.3d 659 (Tenn. 2020) (interpretation and requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(14))
In re Gabriella D., 531 S.W.3d 662 (Tenn. 2017) (best-interest analysis principles)
In re Jude M., 619 S.W.3d 224 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020) (limits on applying persistent-conditions when removal order not tied to D&N petition)
Baxter v. Rowan, 620 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2020) (custody default rules for children born out of wedlock)