In Re Ken'Bria B.
W2017-01441-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Jan 4, 2018Background
- Child born June 2014; placed in DCS custody Nov. 2014 and adjudicated dependent and neglected March 2015. Mother surrendered parental rights and is not an appellant.
- Father (Kenneth F.) was incarcerated in Dec. 2013 and sentenced Feb. 2016 to multiple terms including two 15-year sentences; Child was under eight when sentences were entered.
- Father was not listed on the birth certificate, never filed to establish paternity before DCS filed the termination petition; DNA later confirmed biological paternity.
- Father had minimal contact with the Child: essentially one DCS-supervised visit (Dec. 2016) after entry into foster care; visitation later suspended due to contraband in his cell.
- DCS petitioned in Dec. 2016 to terminate Father’s parental rights. The Juvenile Court found multiple statutory grounds (including long-term incarceration and putative-father grounds) and that termination was in the Child’s best interest; Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (DCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the incarceration ground under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(6) applies given Father’s potential early parole | Parole opportunity and pending appeals mean the 10+-year sentencing ground should not apply | The statutory ground is determined by the judgment and sentence; possibility of early parole does not negate the ground | Ground proved: court affirmed application of the 10+ year incarceration ground |
| Whether Father is a putative father (so putative-father grounds apply) | Father contends lack of certain procedural steps (e.g., not signing permanency-plan page) and insufficient DCS efforts | Mother identified Father; Father never filed to establish paternity before the termination petition; DNA confirms biology but he remained a putative father under statute | Held: Father is a putative father and putative-father grounds apply |
| Whether Father failed to seek reasonable visitation / manifest willingness and ability to assume custody | Father says incarceration and limited prison access hindered his ability to pursue visitation and legitimate the child | DCS shows Father had means to communicate, did not pursue visitation or legitimation, and only minimal contact and gifts occurred | Held: Clear and convincing evidence Father failed to seek reasonable visitation and failed to manifest ability/willingness to assume custody |
| Whether termination is in the Child’s best interest (including risk of substantial psychological harm if returned to Father) | Father emphasizes desire and some support for the Child; argues no proof of direct harm from placement with him | DCS emphasizes established strong bond with foster family, disruption would be harmful, Father’s incarceration and limited relationship prevent reunification now | Held: Termination is in the Child’s best interest; court affirmed termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (United States Supreme Court) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (United States Supreme Court) (termination requires clear and convincing evidence)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (United States Supreme Court) (parental rights and due process protections)
- In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (standards for termination and best-interest analysis)
- In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. 2010) (clear-and-convincing standard explained)
- In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (in determining incarceration ground courts rely on conviction and sentence)
- In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (appellate review obligations in termination appeals)