In Re Heaven J.
W2016-00782-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Dec 22, 2016Background
- Infant Heaven J., born March 2014 drug-exposed; DCS took temporary custody and placed her in foster care; no father listed on birth certificate.
- Clarence D. (Father) participated by phone in early case meetings, completed a DNA test, expressed intent to legitimate the child, but Mother remained legally married to another man (legal father on record).
- Father traveled to Memphis, attempted to file for legitimation but faced a $100 filing fee and later was incarcerated (Nov 2014–Mar 2015); DCS initiated termination proceedings after his release.
- DCS filed to terminate Father’s parental rights July 30, 2015, alleging abandonment (willful failure to visit/support), substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, persistent conditions, and §36-1-113(g)(9) grounds; trial held Feb 2016 and the juvenile court terminated Father’s rights on all grounds.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed all grounds de novo and concluded DCS failed to prove abandonment (visit/support), substantial noncompliance, persistent conditions (statute inapplicable because child was never removed from Father’s home), and (g)(9) grounds (inapplicable to biological/putative fathers), reversing and remanding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father abandoned child by willful failure to visit (four-month window) | DCS: Father did not visit for required hours and thus willfully abandoned the child | Father: He was told he had no visitation rights until legitimation and faced barriers (advice to retain counsel, residence in KY, incarceration) | Reversed — DCS failed to prove willful failure to visit by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether Father abandoned child by willful failure to support (four-month window) | DCS: Father provided no formal support during the period; ground proven | Father: He provided some early contributions and lacked means/knowledge where to send support; incarceration affected ability to pay | Reversed — insufficient evidence of Father’s capacity to pay during period; DCS failed to prove willfulness |
| Whether Father was in substantial noncompliance with permanency plans | DCS: Father failed to comply with plan tasks (visitation, support, legitimation, ICPC, drug screens) | Father: Took steps (DNA, traveled, attempted filings, passed drug screen), hindered by incarceration, residency in KY, and DCS actions | Reversed — Father made meaningful efforts; noncompliance was not shown to be "substantial" by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether persistent conditions ground applied | DCS: Conditions that led to child’s removal persist and justify termination | Father: Ground inapplicable because child was never removed from his home/custody | Reversed — statutory threshold unmet: child was not removed from Father’s home, so ground inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (Court of Appeals must review every ground and best-interest finding in termination appeals)
- In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533 (Tenn. 2015) (statutory framework for termination proceedings under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113)
- In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. 2010) (limits use of §36-1-113(g)(9) grounds against biological or putative fathers)
- In re Adoption of Angela E., 402 S.W.3d 636 (Tenn. 2013) (defines clear-and-convincing standard and stresses need for evidence of parent’s means when alleging willful failure to support)
- In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (procedural standard of review in termination appeals and threshold requirement for persistent-conditions ground)
- In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (Tenn. 2002) (substantial noncompliance requires more than minor failures; plan tasks must be reasonable and related to removal conditions)