In Re: Jeramyah H., M2016-00141-COA-R3-PT

Background

Children (Jeramyah, Kaydee) removed Aug–Oct 2013 after newborn Kaydee had methadone; initial placement with Father terminated when he allowed contact with Mother in violation of Immediate Placement Agreement.
DCS developed permanency plans requiring Father to obtain stable housing, legal income, budgeting, parenting classes, assessments, anger management, and cooperation; plans amended but retained core requirements.
DCS filed to terminate parental rights July 21, 2014; trial held May–Sept 2015. Mother consented to dependency/neglect; DCS later nonsuited claims as to one half‑sibling.
At trial Father conceded he never paid court‑ordered child support ($50/month per child) and had been employed (PepsiCo then subcontractor); he completed many plan tasks by the final hearing but had episodes of contact with Mother and a domestic‑assault charge.
Juvenile court found three grounds proven against Father (willful failure to support, failure to provide a suitable home, persistence of conditions) and that termination was in children’s best interests; the Court of Appeals affirmed termination but reversed as to two of the grounds, affirming only willful failure to support and best‑interest finding.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCS)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
1) Abandonment — willful failure to support	Father never paid support during relevant 4‑month period and had capacity to pay; failure was willful.	Father lacked ability or notice (claimed court reserved support; lacked TCSES number).	Affirmed: willful failure to support proven by clear and convincing evidence.
2) Abandonment — failure to provide a suitable home	Father’s home was unsuitable because he continued contact with Mother (drug user), risking children.	Father maintained adequate housing; Mother was not shown to be residing in his home during the critical period; DCS at times encouraged contact.	Reversed: insufficient evidence that relationship with Mother made home unsuitable.
3) Persistence of conditions (Tenn. Code §36‑1‑113(g)(3))	Conditions that led to removal (Mother’s drug use and her access to Father’s home) persisted, preventing safe return.	Mother’s drug use persisted but Father’s home was not shown to be “not free” of Mother; contact was co‑parenting and sometimes DCS‑permitted.	Reversed: DCS failed to prove all statutory elements by clear and convincing evidence.
4) Best interests of the children	Termination would promote stability: children bonded with foster family, fears expressed about Father, supervised visits only, and Father failed financially and had anger issues.	Father argued he maintained visitation, obtained housing, completed plan tasks, and sought to care for children (including newborn).	Affirmed: termination is in children’s best interests based on totality (bond with foster family, child fear, Father’s anger and nonpayment).

Key Cases Cited

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (recognition of parental constitutional right)
In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (standard for statutory termination framework)
Nash‑Putman v. McCloud, 921 S.W.2d 170 (parental rights not absolute)
In re Adoption of a Female Child, 896 S.W.2d 546 (parental rights jurisprudence)
In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533 (codified grounds and procedures for termination)
In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (clear‑and‑convincing standard and appellate review guidance)
Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896 (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
In re Taylor B.W., 397 S.W.3d 105 (appellate review of factual findings in termination cases)
Walton v. Young, 950 S.W.2d 956 (deference to trial court credibility findings)
In re Adoption of Angela E., 402 S.W.3d 636 (abandonment definitions under Tenn. Code)
In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (willfulness in failure to support context)
State v. Culbertson, 152 S.W.3d 513 (obligation to support exists independent of court order)
In re A.D.A., 84 S.W.3d 592 (meaning of suitable home in termination context)
In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (analysis for permanency plan compliance and termination grounds)
In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d 643 (substantial noncompliance vs. minor deviations)
In re Marr, 194 S.W.3d 490 (best‑interest balancing in termination cases)