In Re: Karissa v.
E2016-00395-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Feb 27, 2017Background
- Grandfather (Glenn V.) obtained temporary custody of his grandchildren, Karissa (b.2011) and Makilee (b.2013), after their births (both drug-exposed), and filed to terminate Mother (Makara G.) and Father (Christopher V.) parental rights and to adopt on Dec. 5, 2014 (amended July 2015).
- Trial occurred Feb. 2016; Mother did not appear though represented by appointed counsel; counsel proceeded to trial; Grandfather and other witnesses testified about visitation, support, and alleged drug activity.
- Grandfather kept detailed visitation logs for Mother (confusion over counts); he had no detailed log for Father but testified Father visited "substantially" though not consistently and paid no child support; Grandfather also testified Father intermittently worked for him and earned small annual amounts.
- Evidence included contested text messages (produced by a third party, Robert T.) allegedly showing Mother's drug sales; foundation and authentication disputed at trial.
- Trial Court terminated both parents' rights for abandonment (willful failure to support and to visit) and granted adoption to Grandfather; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Grandfather) | Defendant's Argument (Parent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether willful failure to support (Father) existed | Father made no child support payments during the 4 months before filing; he had capacity to pay | Father offered that Grandfather told him not to worry and that he provided some goods; intermittent low wages and limited income | Affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence Father had capacity, worked intermittently, and willfully failed to support |
| 2. Whether willful failure to visit (Father) existed | Visits were perfunctory, infrequent, often distracted, and only when convenient | Grandfather and Father testified Father visited many times; no detailed log but visits occurred substantially | Reversed: evidence did not meet clear-and-convincing standard for willful failure to visit |
| 3. Persistent-conditions ground (Father) | Alleged in petition as alternative ground | Trial Court never ruled on it; Grandfather did not press on appeal | Not decided below; no remand — Father not terminated on this ground on appeal |
| 4. Termination in children's best interest (Father) | Children well-cared for by Grandfather; Father unstable, substance history, not self-sufficient | Father argued continued contact and some provision of items; contested facts | Affirmed: termination of Father's rights is in children's best interest |
| 5. Proceeding in Mother's absence and ineffective assistance claim | Trial could proceed; counsel represented Mother; Grandfather argues lack of appearance supports termination | Mother argued trial proceeded without her and counsel was ineffective | Denied: proceeding without Mother did not deny fundamentally fair procedures; ineffective-assistance claim not a recognized post-termination remedy per controlling precedent |
| 6. Willful failure to visit (Mother) | Mother failed ordered or meaningful visitation in 4 months before filing | Grandfather's logs confused; testimony showed Mother actually visited often (43–44 visits) | Reversed: evidence not clear-and-convincing that Mother's visits were token or willfully withheld |
| 7. Admissibility of text messages (Mother) | Texts authenticate Mother’s drug activity supporting willfulness of non-support | Mother (absent) challenged authentication; foundation weak, possible third-party authorship | Admissibility affirmed (no abuse of discretion) though messages not dispositive on willfulness |
| 8. Willful failure to support (Mother) | Mother provided no support; texts show possible drug income | Grandfather failed to prove Mother had capacity to pay during relevant 4-month window | Reversed: insufficient clear-and-convincing evidence of willful non-support by Mother; adoption reversed as to her |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental rights are fundamental liberty interests)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parental rights protection under due process)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (heightened standard — clear and convincing — in termination proceedings)
- Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Servs. of Durham Cnty., N.C., 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (due process and procedural protections)
- In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (statutory and procedural requirements in Tennessee termination cases)
- In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. 2010) (clear-and-convincing standard and appellate review of termination findings)
- In re A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793 (Tenn. 2007) (acts of others can excuse failure to visit only if they actually prevent visitation)
- In re M.L.P., 281 S.W.3d 387 (Tenn. 2009) (standard for when third-party interference excuses failure to visit)
- In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (no post-appeal ineffective-assistance remedy in parental termination cases)