In Re Lauren F., W2020-01732-COA-R3-PT

Background

Lauren F. (b. 2012); Mother is primary custodial parent; Father had periods of sobriety and relapse and was never married to Mother.
April 2016 agreed order: Mother primary residential parent; Father awarded every-other-weekend visitation and ordered to pay child support (garnishment).
Father stopped exercising weekend visitation in spring 2018; attended child's May 2018 kindergarten graduation allegedly appearing "high" and tested positive for methamphetamine; he last saw the child in May 2018 and sent a Christmas gift in Dec. 2018.
Father was arrested Jan. 2019 (pled simple possession); his suspended sentence was reinstated Apr. 9, 2019 and he was incarcerated when the termination/adoption petition was filed Apr. 23, 2019.
Mother and Step‑Father filed petition to terminate Father’s rights and for step‑parent adoption alleging abandonment (failure to visit and support) and mental incapacity/persistent conditions.
Trial was Nov. 19, 2020 (continuance denied); trial court terminated Father’s rights for failure to visit, failure to support, and wanton disregard; the Court of Appeals affirmed termination for failure to visit and best interest, reversed failure‑to‑support, and vacated the wanton‑disregard ground.

Issues

Issue	Petitioners' Argument	Father's Argument	Held
Whether denial of continuance was an abuse of discretion	Trial should proceed (child’s permanency interest); continuance not required	Continuance needed because appointed counsel lost contact with Father after his incarceration and could not prepare	Denial affirmed; court did not abuse discretion (expediency and Father had prior notice to maintain contact with counsel)
Whether abandonment by failure to visit (4‑month period before incarceration) was proved	Father did not visit during the relevant 4‑month period and waived lack‑of‑willfulness defense	Father said Mother prevented visits and thus failure was not willful	Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence of abandonment by failure to visit (Father failed to produce drug screens or seek court relief)
Whether abandonment by failure to support (4‑month period) was proved	Payments during period were token ($200 + gift) and insufficient	Father was unemployed/no income during the period; payment not necessarily token	Reversed: record does not show clear and convincing evidence that payments were merely token given Father’s lack of means
Whether abandonment by wanton disregard (pre‑incarceration conduct) was available ground	Petitioners argued Father’s conduct (substance abuse, arrests) showed wanton disregard	Father argued lack of notice—ground not pled in petition	Vacated: wanton‑disregard ground was not pleaded and was not tried by implied consent; Father lacked adequate notice
Whether termination is in the child's best interest	Child is thriving with Mother/Step‑Father; Father’s substance abuse, lack of relationship, instability pose detriment	Father asserted plans for sobriety and reintegration	Affirmed: weighing § 36‑1‑113(i) factors (relationship, stability, effect of change) supports termination as in child’s best interest

Key Cases Cited

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (parental custody is a fundamental right)
In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (statutory framework for termination and state interest)
In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (standard of review and need to independently determine whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination)
In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (definition of ‘‘willful’’ failure to visit or support and when another’s conduct excuses failure)
In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (clear and convincing proof standard in termination cases)
In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (Tenn. 2002) (dual‑step requirement: prove statutory ground and best interest)
Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82 (Tenn. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard explained)