In Re: Eric G.
E2017-00188-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Oct 25, 2017Background
- Child Eric (born 2001) removed from Mother’s care in Jan 2014 after DCS found educational, therapeutic, and medical neglect; Eric is severely autistic and non‑verbal and was not enrolled in school since 2009.
- DCS obtained emergency custody and placed Eric at Norris Academy, a residential program providing therapeutic, educational, and medical services.
- Over 2014–2016 DCS developed three permanency plans (initial goal return to parent; later goals adoption) requiring Mother to complete mental‑health and parenting assessments, follow treatment recommendations, enroll Eric in school, and cooperate with services; Mother repeatedly refused or failed to comply and disputed the plans.
- Therapists, caseworkers, and a psychologist (Dr. Wilson) testified that Mother was resistant to coaching, failed to implement therapeutic techniques, engaged in inappropriate interactions with Eric, and met criteria for OCD, GAD, and paranoid personality disorder; Dr. Wilson opined it would be unsafe to return Eric to Mother absent long‑term treatment Mother was unlikely to accept.
- DCS filed to terminate Mother’s parental rights (grounds: persistence of conditions, abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home, and mental incompetence) and for termination to be in Eric’s best interest; trial occurred Dec 2016 (Mother absent); trial court granted termination Jan 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DCS/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to continue trial based on Mother’s illness | Denial violated due process; Mother was too ill to attend | Motion unsupported by physician statement or contemporaneous medical excuse; Mother had delayed repeatedly | Denial not an abuse of discretion; no prejudice shown; continuance denied |
| Persistence of conditions (Tenn. Code § 36‑1‑113(g)(3)) | Mother argued evidence did not clearly show persistent conditions or inability to remedy | DCS pointed to long‑term failure to enroll Eric, resistance to services, and expert opinion that Mother unlikely to change | Court: clear and convincing evidence of persistence of conditions; ground proven |
| Abandonment — failure to provide suitable home (Tenn. Code § 36‑1‑102(1)(A)(ii)) | Mother contended her home was physically suitable and Eric’s progress at Norris would have occurred at home | DCS showed extensive, reasonable efforts and Mother’s lack of cooperation, failure to address developmental/medical needs, and disruptive conduct | Court: DCS made reasonable/extraordinary efforts; Mother abandoned Eric by failing to establish a suitable home; ground proven |
| Mental incompetence (Tenn. Code § 36‑1‑113(g)(8)) | Mother disputed Dr. Wilson’s conclusions; argued she could care for Eric | DCS relied on Dr. Wilson and corroborating testimony that Mother’s mental condition prevented safe parenting and she was unlikely to engage in required long‑term treatment | Court: clear and convincing evidence Mother is presently so impaired and likely to remain so that she cannot resume care; ground proven |
| Best interest of the child (Tenn. Code § 36‑1‑113(i)) | Mother argued she could meet Eric’s needs and maintain relationship | DCS and GAL argued termination required for Eric’s development and future stability; evidence showed improvement post‑removal and Mother’s resistance hindered progress | Court: termination is in Eric’s best interest; holding affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parents have a fundamental right to custody of their children)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (heightened burden of proof in parental‑termination cases)
- In re Adoption of A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793 (Tenn. 2007) (statutory framework for termination requires proof of at least one ground and best interest)
- Osborn v. Marr, 127 S.W.3d 737 (Tenn. 2004) (parental rights may be terminated only per statute)
- Blake v. Plus Mark, Inc., 952 S.W.2d 413 (Tenn. 1997) (trial court’s denial of continuance is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- In re Dakota C.R., 404 S.W.3d 484 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (purpose and application of persistence‑of‑conditions ground)
- White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (best‑interest inquiry is fact‑intensive and child‑centered)