In Re Hailey C.
M2016-00818-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Sep 28, 2017Background
- Father (Fred C.) was convicted of multiple counts of child rape and aggravated sexual battery based on abuse of his two daughters; convictions were affirmed on appeal and he is serving a 34-year sentence.
- Mother filed to terminate Father’s parental rights to the two children in 2015; trial occurred March 9–11, 2016 in Davidson County Juvenile Court.
- Mother amended her petition during trial to proceed solely under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(11)(B) (parent found to have committed severe child sexual abuse by a criminal court); the amendment merely clarified the statutory ground, not the facts or proof.
- Trial court found statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in the children’s best interests; it terminated Father’s parental rights on March 30, 2016.
- Father appealed raising six issues: denial of stay/continuance, denial of disqualification of Mother’s counsel (former prosecutor), allowance of the in-trial amendment, sufficiency of grounds, best-interest finding, and ineffective assistance of appointed counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in denying stay/continuance pending post-conviction appeals | Case should proceed to protect children’s interests despite criminal appeals; convictions already affirmed by appellate courts | Proceedings should be stayed until criminal post-conviction matters are exhausted | Denial affirmed — court properly balanced interests; no absolute right to stay; convictions had been upheld and children needed resolution |
| Whether opposing counsel should be disqualified (Rule 1.11) | Former prosecutor may represent Mother because criminal prosecution and civil termination are separate matters and no confidential gov’t info was used | Ms. Reddick prosecuted Father and thus should be disqualified for participating previously in the matter | Denial affirmed — Rule 1.11 inapplicable; no evidence of confidential information giving an unfair advantage |
| Whether trial court erred by allowing Mother to amend petition during trial | Amendment merely identified correct statutory ground based on the same facts and proof; no prejudice to Father | Amendment was untimely and prejudicial | Allowance affirmed — amendment did not prejudice Father; counsel declined additional time and proof unchanged |
| Whether clear-and-convincing evidence established statutory grounds (Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(11)) | Mother: Father was found to have committed severe child sexual abuse by a criminal court, satisfying the statute | Father: maintains innocence of crimes | Affirmed — Father’s convictions satisfy the statutory ground; claims of innocence do not negate the statutory finding |
| Whether termination is in children’s best interests (Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(i)) | Termination protects children given incarceration, inability to provide a home, lack of meaningful relationship, and children’s wishes | Father emphasizes prior relationship and relatives’ connection | Affirmed — trial court properly evaluated statutory factors and children testified they wanted termination |
| Whether appointed counsel’s performance was constitutionally ineffective | N/A for Mother; procedural argument that ineffective assistance should not nullify termination | Counsel rendered inadequate representation requiring reversal | Rejected — Tennessee precedent bars attacks on termination judgments based on appointed counsel ineffectiveness; court declines to depart from stare decisis |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533 (Tenn. 2015) (statutory framework for termination proceedings and two-element proof requirement)
- In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. 2010) (clear-and-convincing standard explained)
- In re Adoption of Angela E., 402 S.W.3d 636 (Tenn. 2013) (definition of clear-and-convincing evidence)
- In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (parent does not have a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in termination proceedings)
- Eleanor Bell v. Roger Todd, 206 S.W.3d 86 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (stay/continuance of civil proceedings in light of parallel criminal matters is discretionary)