In Re Gabriella D., 531 S.W.3d 662

Background

DCS removed three children in March 2012 after six‑month‑old Chance was found severely malnourished; children were placed with foster parents (Karen and Thomas P.).
Mother had extensive prior child‑welfare history (Georgia termination of rights to two older children; past substance abuse and relationship with Father) but completed a permanency plan, remained drug‑free by testing, obtained stable housing and employment, and reestablished a support network.
DCS planned a staggered trial home visit beginning July 31, 2013; on that date foster parents filed a circuit‑court petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights and seek adoption.
Juvenile court ordered the trial home visit proceed; children resided with Mother for ~2 years without incident before the circuit‑court trial (Sept. 2015).
Trial court found clear and convincing proof of the statutory ground (severe abuse) but concluded Foster Parents failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children’s best interests and dismissed the petition; Court of Appeals reversed on best interests.
Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission to appeal and reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstating the trial court’s dismissal: although a statutory ground existed, the combined weight of the evidence did not meet the heightened clear‑and‑convincing standard that termination was in the children’s best interests.

Issues

Issue	Foster Parents' Argument	Mother/DCS/Amicus Argument	Held
1) Whether a statutory ground (severe abuse) was proven	Chance’s severe malnutrition and Mother’s past conduct establish severe abuse	Mother did not dispute facts but emphasized rehabilitation since 2012	Court: severe abuse proven by clear and convincing evidence (trial and COA affirmed)
2) Whether termination is in the children’s best interests	Past severe neglect, history of substance abuse, and risk of relapse outweigh reunification; adoption is best	Mother, DCS, and juvenile GAL: Mother’s sustained compliance, two years’ incident‑free care, attachments, and professional opinions weigh against termination	Court: Not proven by clear and convincing evidence; trial court’s best‑interests finding reinstated
3) Proper standard of review for best‑interests determination	COA applied de novo review of whether facts amount to clear and convincing proof	Same; courts must apply statutory nine‑factor analysis and view child’s perspective	Court: appellate courts review trial court’s factual findings de novo under Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d) but must independently determine whether facts meet the clear‑and‑convincing threshold for best interests
4) Weight of past conduct versus changed circumstances	Past brutality/neglect and history justify outcome‑determinative weight on factor (i)(6)	Past misconduct is relevant but not dispositive when parent has demonstrably rehabilitated; must consider all factors and child‑centered perspective	Court: Past severe abuse is important but cannot alone satisfy clear‑and‑convincing proof that termination is in children’s best interests when the overall record supports reunification

Key Cases Cited

In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (standards for appellate review and analysis in parental‑termination cases)
In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. 2010) (appellate review rules for termination proceedings)
In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (separation of grounds and best‑interests analysis)
In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533 (Tenn. 2015) (best‑interests proof is evaluated to determine if facts amount to clear and convincing evidence)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (due‑process protection of parental rights and heightened proof standard)
Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (constitutional procedural protections in parental‑rights cases)
In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (guidance on child‑centered best‑interests analysis and statutory factors)