In re Kayla B., E2016-01192-COA-R3-PT

Background

Six children (ages 3–12) were removed from Mother Brandie V. and Father Allen S. in Feb. 2015 after DCS found the home unsafe (no water/electricity, trash, broken fixtures, hazardous materials); parents had histories of substance abuse and prior DCS involvement (2012 dependency; finding of severe child abuse re: twins).
Parents stipulated to dependency and neglect; DCS adopted a permanency plan requiring assessments, treatment, safe housing, drug screens, visitation, child support, and parenting classes.
Between Feb–Oct 2015, parents repeatedly failed drug screens, were intermittently incarcerated, did not complete required assessments/treatment, and the home remained unverified or unsafe; the home burned in July 2015.
The six children were placed together in one foster home where they made substantial developmental gains; foster mother sought to adopt.
DCS petitioned to terminate parental rights alleging abandonment (two theories), substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, persistence of conditions, and severe child abuse; juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCS)	Defendant's Argument (Parent)	Held
1. Abandonment — incarcerated parent (willful failure to support/visit)	Parents were incarcerated in the relevant 4‑month period and paid no child support; this satisfies statutory abandonment.	Parents lacked income/resources during that period; failure to pay was not willful.	Reversed as to this ground — DCS did not prove willfulness because no evidence of parents’ means during the 4 months.
2. Abandonment — failure to provide suitable home	Despite DCS assistance, parents made no reasonable effort to maintain a safe, suitable home after removal.	Parents later obtained housing and made some improvements; challenges tied to incarceration/poverty.	Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence parents made no reasonable effort and showed lack of concern such that early provision of a suitable home was unlikely.
3. Substantial noncompliance with permanency plan	Parents failed to complete assessments, treatment, verified housing, budgeting, and consistent drug‑free behavior required by the plan.	Mother had some compliance (treatment in jail, assessments); Father made late, limited efforts; incarceration relevant.	Affirmed — plan was reasonable; both parents’ noncompliance was substantial given plan’s central objectives.
4. Persistence of conditions	Conditions (parental substance abuse, unsafe home) persisted >6 months and unlikely to be remedied soon, hindering safe return.	Parents argued improved conduct and recent housing/employment efforts show likelihood of remedy.	Affirmed — clear and convincing proof that conditions persisted and continuation of parent–child relationship would delay permanency.
5. Severe child abuse (prior adjudication)	2012 adjudication found severe child abuse re: twins due to prenatal drug use; that finding supports termination for all children.	Parents had previously remedied issues and once regained custody in 2014.	Affirmed — prior judicial finding of severe child abuse is res judicata and supports termination for siblings.
6. Best interest of the children	Termination serves best interests: children thriving in foster home, bonded to caregivers, need stability and permanency.	Parents contended visitation and love for children weigh against termination; some recent progress.	Affirmed — combined evidence (children’s improvement, bonding, parental relapse risk, lack of lasting adjustment) met clear and convincing standard.

Key Cases Cited

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (constitutional right to parent)
In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (parental rights not absolute)
In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (burden: clear and convincing proof in termination cases)
In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533 (Tenn. 2015) (statutory framework for termination)
In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (permanency‑plan reasonableness and substantial noncompliance analysis)
In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (best‑interest standard and combined‑weight requirement)
In re Heaven L.F., 311 S.W.3d 435 (res judicata effect of prior severe abuse adjudication)