In Re JACOBE M.J., 434 S.W.3d 565

Jacobe M.J., born January 7, 2009; maternal grandmother (Yvette F.D.) obtained physical custody after the child lived with her from Nov. 2010; grandmother filed to terminate parental rights and to adopt on April 17, 2012.
Father (Jerry P.) was served, initially unrepresented, later found indigent and appointed counsel; mother’s parental rights were previously terminated by default.
Trial court found Father had not visited the child in the four months before the petition and made no meaningful efforts to provide support since Nov. 2010; Father had intermittent employment and purchased only nominal items for the child post-petition.
Father claimed he did not pay support or bring necessities because there was no court order and alleged his attorney told him contact might violate a restraining order; court found those excuses insufficient.
Child has medical conditions (asthma, sinusitis, ear tubes) and must avoid smoke/allergens; grandmother provided a stable, safe home and improved the child’s medical care; Father and his fiancée smoke.
Trial court terminated Father’s parental rights for abandonment (willful failure to visit and support) and found termination was in the child’s best interest; appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Father abandoned the child by willful failure to visit and support (Tenn. Code Ann. §36-1-113(g)(1) / §36-1-102(1)(A)(i))	Grandmother: Father made no visits in the 4 months before filing, provided no meaningful support, and had ability to pay — ground proven by clear and convincing evidence.	Father: He attempted some contact post-petition; he believed a court order was required to pay support and alleged attorney advised against contact due to a TRO.	Affirmed: Clear and convincing evidence of abandonment by willful failure to visit and willful failure to support.
Whether terminating Father's parental rights is in the child's best interest (Tenn. Code Ann. §36-1-113(i))	Grandmother: Child is bonded to grandmother, stable environment, improved medical care, father smokes and lacks bond/consistent support — termination serves child’s best interest.	Father: Asserts desire to rebuild relationship and disagrees termination serves child's interest.	Affirmed: Trial court’s best-interest findings supported by clear and convincing evidence; termination in child’s best interest.

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parental custody is a fundamental liberty interest)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (heightened burden of proof required in parental termination cases)
Nash–Putnam v. McCloud, 921 S.W.2d 170 (Tenn. 1996) (state’s interest justifies termination only in specified statutory circumstances)
In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (Tenn. 2002) (grounds and best-interest findings must be proven by clear and convincing evidence)
In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (definition and effect of clear and convincing evidence in termination cases)
McCaleb v. Saturn Corp., 910 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1995) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
Walton v. Young, 950 S.W.2d 956 (Tenn. 1997) (appellate respect for trial court’s credibility determinations)
White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994) (best-interest inquiry when a ground for termination is proven)
In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (statutory factors for best-interest analysis)
Smith v. Gore, 728 S.W.2d 738 (Tenn. 1987) (parental duty to support children generally)