In Re: Jose L.
E2016-00517-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Oct 31, 2016Background
- Father (Jose C.L.R.), a Mexican national with limited English, is the biological father of three children (J.L., A.L., M.L.) removed from Mother's care after severe malnourishment/abuse was discovered in March 2014. Mother’s parental rights were later terminated; this appeal concerns only Father.
- DCS developed permanency plans (in Spanish and explained via interpreter) requiring visitation, verifiable income/housing, psychological and parenting evaluations, nutrition and domestic-violence classes, and plans for transportation/childcare/discipline/meal planning.
- Father lived in Tennessee after removal, attended roughly ten supervised visits overall but only two brief visits in the four months before DCS filed the termination petition (August 28, 2015); he provided minimal income verification and failed to complete most plan requirements.
- DCS petitioned to terminate Father’s rights on grounds of substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan and abandonment by willful failure to visit; the juvenile court found both grounds and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
- On appeal, Father conceded many failures but argued (1) DCS did not show reasonable efforts to reunify (pre-In re Kaliyah S. argument) and (2) some plan requirements were unreasonable or impossible given his immigration status; he also contested willfulness of visitation failures.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: it found clear and convincing evidence of substantial noncompliance and willful token visitation, and that termination served the children’s best interests (stability, bonds with foster parents, safety concerns given Father’s prior inaction).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether DCS proved a statutory ground: substantial noncompliance with permanency plan | DCS: Father failed to complete key plan tasks (evaluations, classes, plans, verifiable income/transportation), justifying termination | Father: Some tasks were unreasonable or impossible given his undocumented status; DCS failed to show reasonable reunification efforts | Held: Affirmed. Plan requirements were reasonable; Father failed many tasks unimpeded by immigration status; substantial noncompliance proven by clear and convincing evidence |
| 2. Whether DCS proved abandonment by willful failure to visit (4-month rule) | DCS: Father attended only token visits/calls in the four months before filing, and had capacity and notice to visit | Father: Logistical/work/transportation issues and language barrier excused limited/no visits; lack of willfulness | Held: Affirmed. Visits/calls constituted token visitation; Father was aware of duties, had capacity, and failure to visit was willful |
| 3. Whether termination was in the children’s best interests | DCS: Children improved in foster homes, foster parents willing to adopt, Father showed limited bond and prior indifference to safety | Father: Challenges to weight given to his immigration status and claimed attempts to visit | Held: Affirmed. Court found termination served children’s stability, safety, and emotional needs |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognition of fundamental parental rights)
- In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (statutory framework: grounds and best-interest proof requirements)
- In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533 (DCS not required to prove reasonable efforts as prerequisite to termination)
- In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d 643 (clarifies substantial noncompliance standard)
- In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (best-interest analysis and parental-rights burden)
- In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (clear-and-convincing standard discussion)