In Re: Hailey O.
E2016-01657-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Mar 23, 2017Background
- DCS removed Hailey (b.2008) and Holly (b.2010) on Oct 8, 2015; both parents were incarcerated and children were placed in foster care after maternal grandmother failed to meet their needs.
- DCS filed to terminate Father's parental rights on Feb 24, 2016, alleging abandonment by willful failure to visit during the four months immediately before his incarceration and prior conduct showing wanton disregard for the children’s welfare.
- Father was incarcerated continuously since Aug 10, 2014; the relevant four‑month period was Apr 10–Aug 9, 2014, when he was not jailed but made no visits.
- Trial occurred Jul 14, 2016; Father participated by phone. The juvenile court found Father not credible regarding his efforts to locate the children and terminated his rights on Jul 21, 2016.
- Evidence included Father’s long criminal history (2003–2014) with repeated incarcerations, substance‑related conditions, failure to complete court‑ordered treatment, and minimal to no contact or support for the children.
- The court found DCS made reasonable reunification efforts, the children were thriving in foster care, and termination served the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father's pre‑incarceration conduct showed a wanton disregard for children’s welfare | DCS: Father’s repeated criminality and substance conduct showed wanton disregard | Father: Disputes characterization; points to lack of direct evidence of harm during specific periods | Held: Yes — clear and convincing evidence of wanton disregard due to prolonged criminal history and instability |
| Whether Father willfully failed to visit during the 4 months before incarceration (abandonment) | DCS: Father did not visit Apr 10–Aug 9, 2014, and failure was willful | Father: Could not locate children after release; attempted calls, social media, and hired a PI but lacked funds | Held: Court credited DCS; Father’s testimony not credible; failure to visit was willful — abandonment established |
| Whether termination is in the children’s best interest | DCS: Termination is necessary for children’s stability, permanency, and welfare | Father: Argued DCS didn’t make reasonable efforts and process moved too quickly | Held: Yes — clear and convincing evidence termination served best interests (stable foster placement, progress, lack of parental relationship) |
| Whether trial court erred in credibility assessment of telephonic testimony | Father: Implicitly argues telephone participation undermines credibility finding | DCS: Trial court entitled to assess credibility of phone testimony | Held: No error; appellate court gives deference to trial court’s credibility findings including telephonic testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (protects parental fundamental right)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (termination requires heightened proof)
- In re Adoption of A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793 (Tenn.) (statutory framework for termination)
- In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (willfulness and wanton‑disregard analysis for incarcerated parents)
- In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (Tenn.) (best‑interest standard requires clear and convincing proof)
- Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn.) (deference to trial court credibility findings for telephonic witnesses)
- White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (child’s best interest is fact‑intensive and viewed from child’s perspective)