In Re Kaisona B., W2020-01308-COA-R3-PT

Background

Twins born June 19, 2018; mother tested positive for methamphetamine/amphetamine at birth and again shortly after; children placed in DCS custody and in same foster home from July 9, 2018 onward.
Father was identified by DNA, adjudicated father in January 2019, but had been incarcerated on federal drug charges since February 22, 2018 and remained incarcerated through the proceedings.
DCS implemented four permanency plans requiring drug/mental‑health assessments, treatment, supervised visitation, parenting classes, stable housing, and compliance with criminal‑case requirements; both parents signed but repeatedly failed key requirements.
Mother missed many visits (24 of 59 attended), failed 10 of 13 drug screens, never established stable housing or sustained treatment, and was later federally charged and incarcerated; Father visited twice, completed minimal programming while incarcerated, and had no projected release date.
DCS petitioned to terminate both parents’ rights (filed Aug. 14, 2019); trial court entered termination order Aug. 24, 2020, amended Apr. 27, 2021 to include findings; Court of Appeals affirmed termination and best‑interest ruling.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCS)	Defendant's Argument (Parents)	Held
Abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home (Mother)	Mother failed to reciprocate reasonable efforts: repeated positive drug tests, no stable housing or support, out of contact, incarcerated	Mother argued false positives (Ranitidine), had been working, and attended assessments	Court: Termination affirmed — clear and convincing evidence of abandonment
Persistence of conditions that led to removal (Mother)	Mother’s methamphetamine use persisted, incarceration and pending federal charges; little likelihood of remedy soon	Mother pointed to assessments and claimed some compliance	Court: Termination affirmed — persistent conditions not remedied
Substantial noncompliance with permanency plans (Mother & Father)	Neither parent completed material plan tasks (treatment, parenting, visitation, housing); Father largely inactive while incarcerated	Father cited incarceration and COVID limits on programming; Mother cited some assessments completed	Court: Termination affirmed for both — noncompliance was substantial and plans were reasonable
Failure to manifest ability/willingness to assume custody (Mother & Father)	Both failed to show ability/willingness: minimal visitation, continued drug/criminal involvement, incarceration; placing children with them would risk substantial harm	Parents expressed desire to parent but point to incarceration limits and asserted some attempts	Court: Termination affirmed — parents failed to manifest ability/willingness and custody would pose substantial harm
Best interests of the children	Adoption by long‑term foster parents provides stable, permanent home; children bonded to foster family and never lived with parents	Parents urged preservation of parental rights / possibility of future rehabilitation	Court: Termination affirmed — clear and convincing evidence termination is in children’s best interest

Key Cases Cited

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental custody a fundamental liberty interest)
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (parental rights constitutionally protected)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (higher standard of proof required in termination cases)
In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (statutory framework for termination and review of all grounds)
In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (standards for appellate review in termination cases)
In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (Tenn. 2002) (reasonableness and relation of permanency‑plan requirements to removal grounds)
In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (clear‑and‑convincing evidence standard explanation)
In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533 (Tenn. 2015) (best‑interest analysis and statutory factors)