In Re Isabella G.
M2016-02105-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Oct 3, 2017Background
- Mother (Kimberly N.) and Father (Daniel G.) are parents of two young children removed in Aug. 2014 after drug exposure and unstable housing; Jaxson tested positive for opiates at birth.
- DCS developed three permanency plans requiring sobriety, counseling, housing, employment, compliance with probation, supervised visitation, and other services; parents were largely noncompliant during the first year.
- Both parents had repeated criminal convictions and periods of incarceration during the case; Mother accumulated several convictions after removal and was incarcerated much of 2015.
- Parents made meaningful progress only after DCS filed the termination petition (late 2015–early 2016): housing, jobs, outpatient treatment, parenting classes, and some counseling, but several plan obligations remained incomplete.
- Juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights on multiple statutory grounds and found termination in the children’s best interest; on appeal DCS conceded some grounds were inappropriate and this Court modified the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | DCS (Plaintiff) Argument | Parents (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Abandonment — failure to provide a suitable home (Tenn. Code) | DCS: Father made no reasonable efforts in the 4 months after removal to provide a suitable home. | Father: DCS did not prove reasonable efforts occurred in the critical 4-month period; assistance evidence was vague. | Vacated as to Father — DCS failed to show reasonable efforts in the statutory four-month window. |
| 2) Abandonment — wanton disregard for welfare (incarceration-based definition) | DCS: Parents’ pre-incarceration criminal conduct, substance abuse, probation violations, and leaving children with relatives show wanton disregard. | Parents: Conduct unrelated to children’s presence; wanton disregard should require egregious/unforgivable acts. | Affirmed for both — court finds clear and convincing evidence of wanton disregard based on pattern of criminality, substance abuse, and abandonment-like conduct. |
| 3) Substantial noncompliance with permanency plans | DCS: Parents failed to substantially comply with reasonable plan tasks that addressed drug use, criminality, housing, employment, and counseling. | Parents: Plans lacked a formal "statement of responsibilities"; they later complied with many tasks. | Affirmed — plans were sufficiently clear; noncompliance was substantial and parents’ progress came too late. |
| 4) Persistence of conditions (Tenn. Code) | DCS: Conditions leading to removal (instability, substance abuse, criminality) persisted, so safe return unlikely. | Parents: Father had housing and employment and had participated in treatment before trial; DCS evidence of ongoing conditions was not compelling. | Vacated as to Father — evidence was not clear and convincing that conditions persisted; cannot sustain termination on this ground. |
| 5) Best interest of the children | DCS: Parents’ long delays, sporadic visitation, lack of bond, ongoing criminal and substance history, and no child support weigh for termination. | Parents: Recent improvements and bonding efforts could favor reunification. | Affirmed — combined proof (parental instability, poor visitation, strong foster placement, and risk of relapse) satisfies clear and convincing standard that termination is in children’s best interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (parental custody is a fundamental right)
- In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (parental rights are not absolute; statutory framework)
- In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (definitions and analysis of "wanton disregard" abandonment)
- In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. 2010) (clear-and-convincing standard in termination proceedings)
- In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (Tenn. 2002) (standards for permanency-plan noncompliance)
- In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533 (Tenn. 2015) (statutory grounds and procedures for termination)
- In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (best-interest analysis and combined weight required)
- Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896 (Tenn. 1992) (definition of "clear and convincing" evidence)