In Re Kendra P., E2015-02429-COA-R3-PT

Background

DCS removed four children from Mother on July 10, 2014; case adjudicated dependent and neglected Sept. 10, 2014. Mother was jailed around the removal and had multiple convictions for DUI, drug offenses, shoplifting, probation violations, and contributing to delinquency.
Permanency plans (ratified by the juvenile court) required stable housing, employment, drug/alcohol and mental-health assessments and compliance; the goal was changed to adoption. Mother completed some treatment (including while incarcerated) but lacked stable housing and income at trial.
The three younger children were placed together in a pre‑adoptive foster home; Kendra (born May 1999) was placed separately in a non‑preadoptive foster home and was 16 at trial and 17 on appeal (near majority).
DCS petitioned to terminate parental rights on several grounds, including abandonment/wanton disregard and substantial non‑compliance with the permanency plan. The juvenile court found both statutory grounds proven and concluded termination was in the children’s best interests, terminating Mother’s rights to all four children.
On appeal Mother challenged only the termination as to Kendra, arguing termination was not in Kendra’s best interest because Kendra is unlikely to be adopted, is nearly an adult, and wants to maintain contact with Mother.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCS)	Defendant's Argument (Mother)	Held
1) Whether grounds for termination were proven: abandonment/wanton disregard (incarceration + pre‑incarceration conduct)	Mother’s repeated criminal conduct, substance abuse, probation violations, and incarcerations before and during the case show wanton disregard.	Mother did not contest the factual convictions; argued these do not render termination appropriate for Kendra specifically.	Affirmed. Court found clear and convincing evidence of wanton disregard based on convictions, arrests, substance issues, and incarcerations.
2) Whether grounds for termination were proven: substantial non‑compliance with permanency plan	Mother failed substantially to comply with reasonable plan requirements (stable housing, employment, provide a safe, drug‑free home).	Mother completed some treatment and visitation; argued progress and that non‑compliance should not mandate termination for Kendra.	Affirmed. Court found plan reasonable and Mother’s noncompliance substantial.
3) Whether termination was in Kendra’s best interest	Termination would allow DCS to secure permanency (possible adoption) and continuity for child.	Kendra is nearly 18, not in a pre‑adoptive home, unlikely to be adopted, has a strong mutual bond with Mother, and intends to maintain contact even if rights are terminated. Severing parental rights would harm Kendra without offering adoption as an alternative.	Reversed as to Kendra. Although statutory grounds were proven, the court held DCS failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in Kendra’s best interest given her age, low likelihood of adoption, and her established, two‑way relationship with Mother. Kendra remains in DCS custody.

Key Cases Cited

In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (defines conduct amounting to wanton disregard and discusses best‑interest analysis nuances)
In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (appelate review standards in parental‑termination cases)
In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. 2010) (clarifies clear‑and‑convincing standard applies to both grounds and best‑interest steps)
White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (best‑interest factors may be weighted differently depending on case facts)
In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (Tenn. 2002) (standards for proving grounds and permanency‑plan reasonableness)
In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (requirements for proving substantial noncompliance with a permanency plan)
In re F.R.R., III, 193 S.W.3d 528 (Tenn. 2006) (procedural standards for termination proceedings)
In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (statutory framework and best‑interest considerations in termination cases)