In Re Jase P.
E2016-02519-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Jun 21, 2017Background
- Child born Dec. 2015 with neonatal abstinence syndrome; entered DCS custody; mother surrendered parental rights.
- Anthony G. (Father) was confirmed by DNA as the biological father in Mar/Apr 2016; he had been incarcerated continuously since June 2015 and had never met the child.
- Father had a lengthy criminal history, substance abuse, pled guilty to federal and state charges and received concurrent multi-year sentences; he paid $400 for mother’s drug treatment before his arrest.
- Foster family cared for the child; the child requires ongoing specialized medical and therapeutic services and has bonded with foster caregivers who intend to adopt.
- DCS petitioned (Apr 2016) to terminate Father’s parental rights; Juvenile Court found multiple statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in the child’s best interest; Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to manifest ability/willingness to assume custody | Father did nothing after suspecting or learning paternity; even incarcerated he could have acted to establish rights or custody | Continuous incarceration prevented any meaningful opportunity to assume custody | Affirmed: proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Failure to establish paternity (putative‑father requirement) | Father failed to file petition to establish paternity within statutory period after notice | Father did not know for sure until DNA; DCS could more readily establish paternity | Affirmed: proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Risk of substantial harm to physical/psychological welfare | Father is unable to care for child’s special medical/psychological needs; placement with father would risk substantial harm | Record does not show likely psychological harm; Father could learn to care for child | Affirmed: proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| Wanton disregard (abandonment‑style ground) | Father’s pre‑incarceration conduct (drug use, criminal activity, probation violation) while aware mother was pregnant showed wanton disregard | A single incident (June 2015) is insufficient to prove wanton disregard | Affirmed: conduct (including June 2015 crimes) satisfied wanton disregard by clear and convincing evidence |
| Best interests of the child | Termination needed for permanency, stability, and to protect child’s medical/developmental needs; foster family bonded and will adopt | Father argued he could parent if given opportunity | Affirmed: termination is in the child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognition of parental custody as a fundamental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (clear and convincing evidence required to terminate parental rights)
- In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (limits on applying putative‑father grounds prior to 2016 amendment)
- In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (standards for termination proceedings and findings)
- In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (appellate review duties in termination appeals)
- In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (examples of conduct constituting wanton disregard)