In Re Hailey S., M2016-00387-COA-R3-JV

Background

Hailey S., born out of wedlock in 2012, was removed from her mother after severe abuse and prenatal drug exposure; DNA later confirmed Matthew S. M. (Father) as the biological father.
Father signed an acknowledgment of paternity but never had custody, provided minimal financial support, had infrequent visitation, and never established a stable home or income.
DCS placed Hailey with non‑relative foster parents; medical evidence showed significant neurological and developmental injuries requiring intensive, ongoing therapies.
Father and paternal relatives (Will and Bobbi DuBoise) pursued placement in Michigan; Michigan denied Father’s ICPC placement; the DuBoises’ proposed placement was rejected by the juvenile court and later by the circuit court.
The circuit court (de novo review) adjudicated Hailey dependent and neglected as to Father, found Father committed severe child abuse by knowingly failing to protect Hailey, and kept custody with DCS/foster parents based on Hailey’s best interests.
Appellants appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s findings and disposition.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether Hailey is dependent and neglected as to Father	Appellants: adjudication was improper; DCS failed to prove Father unfit	DCS: Father lacked housing, income, missed treatments/appointments, and admitted inability to care for Hailey	Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports dependency and neglect findings under Tenn. Code Ann. § 37‑1‑102(b)(12)(B),(F)
2. Whether Father committed severe child abuse by failing to protect Hailey	Appellants: Father did not perpetrate abuse and was not the abusive parent	DCS: Father knew of mother’s prenatal and ongoing drug use and failed to intervene or pursue custody	Affirmed: court found knowing failure to protect constituted severe child abuse under § 37‑1‑102(b)(21)
3. Whether custody should have been placed with relatives (DuBoises) instead of DCS/foster parents	Appellants: relatives pursued placement diligently; federal/State preference for relatives; removing Hailey now harms her	DCS: child’s health and safety paramount; long‑term bond with foster parents and specialized services weigh against transfer	Affirmed: best‑interest analysis favored continuation with foster parents given Hailey’s medical needs, bonding, and service continuity
4. Whether DCS failed to make reasonable efforts / ADA or timing defects bar the adjudication	Appellants: DCS didn’t adequately search/assist; Father is disabled and entitled to ADA protections; circuit delay prejudiced appellants	DCS: provided services and assistance; ADA not a defense to dependency adjudication; delays lacked prejudice	Affirmed: DCS made reasonable efforts; ADA and timing arguments not a defense to adjudication; no shown prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental custody rights are a protected liberty interest)
In re Adoption of A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793 (Tenn. 2007) (delay/bonding considerations in custody disputes and limits on standards for regaining custody)
In re Swanson, 2 S.W.3d 180 (Tenn. 1999) (unwed fathers must assume significant parental responsibility before full due process protections attach)
In re D.Y.H., 226 S.W.3d 327 (Tenn. 2007) (appellate standard of review in child welfare cases)
In re Isaiah L., 340 S.W.3d 692 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (clear-and‑convincing standard for severe child abuse findings)
In re Benjamin M., 310 S.W.3d 844 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (prenatal drug exposure may constitute severe child abuse)
In re H.L.F., 297 S.W.3d 223 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (parental duty to provide safe environment; child’s corresponding right)
In re Caleb, 362 S.W.3d 581 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (statutory timing for de novo appeals is directory absent shown prejudice)