In Re: Lena G.
E2016-00798-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | May 26, 2017Background
- Lena G. (born ~2001) was removed from parents Sherry (Mother) and Teddy G. (Father) on Oct. 8, 2013 and placed in DCS foster care; adjudication of dependent and neglected entered June 11, 2014. The child remained in foster care and improved in therapy and school.
- DCS filed a termination petition Nov. 19, 2014. Bench trial occurred over multiple days in 2015–2016; final order (Mar. 22, 2016) terminated both parents’ rights on multiple statutory grounds and found termination in the child’s best interest.
- Key evidence: parenting and psychological assessments for both parents, Frontier Health outpatient records, Families Free (intensive parenting) records, caseworker and therapist testimony; DCS also subpoenaed Mother’s Woodridge hospital records, which the trial court admitted over Mother’s objection.
- Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence: (1) abandonment for failure to provide a suitable home, (2) substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, (3) Mother mentally incompetent to parent, and (4) persistence of conditions that led to removal. Court also held termination was in the child’s best interest.
- On appeal the court: (a) held admission of Mother’s Woodridge records was erroneous but harmless, (b) affirmed termination on all grounds except reversed the persistence-of-conditions ground because the six-month court-order removal requirement was not satisfied when the termination petition was filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Parents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Mother’s Woodridge hospital records | Records were properly subpoenaed and admissible; Rule of Juvenile Procedure permitted admission in TPR proceedings | Mother argued records were improperly admitted under Tenn. Code §68-11-404 procedural requirements | Admission of records was erroneous under §68-11-404(a) but error was harmless; court affirmed termination on other evidence |
| Abandonment — failure to provide suitable home (Tenn. Code §36-1-102 / §36-1-113(g)(1)) | DCS: parents made no reasonable efforts in the 4 months after removal despite DCS efforts; parents refused/co¬operated minimally with services | Parents: challenged reasonableness of DCS efforts and contend they completed enough tasks | Court: affirmed — clear and convincing evidence that parents abandoned child by failing to provide a suitable home |
| Substantial noncompliance with permanency plans (Tenn. Code §36-1-113(g)(2)) | DCS: parents completed some assessments but refused/failed to follow recommendations (missed/cancelled many parenting sessions, limited therapy) | Parents: claimed tasks were unreasonable or sufficiently completed | Court: affirmed — parents substantially noncompliant with reasonable, court-ratified plans |
| Persistence of conditions (Tenn. Code §36-1-113(g)(3)) | DCS: conditions that led to removal persisted and diminished child’s chance for stable placement | Parents: challenged factual predicate and DCS placement efforts | Court: reversed as to this ground — statutory six-month removal-by-court-order requirement was not met when petition filed |
| Mental incompetence of Mother (Tenn. Code §36-1-113(g)(8)) | DCS: Mother displayed ongoing psychosis, hallucinations, hospitalization history, noncompliance with services → unlikely to parent safely in near future | Mother: disputed reliance on hospital records and argued improvement/compliance | Court: affirmed — excluding the improperly admitted Woodridge records, other evidence (assessments, observations, Frontier Health records, therapist testimony) met clear-and-convincing standard |
| Best interest of child (Tenn. Code §36-1-113(i)) | DCS: child improved in foster care; therapy, stability, safety support termination | Parents: argued bonds and some progress weigh against termination | Court: affirmed — multiple statutory best-interest factors favored termination (safety, mental/medical concerns, improved foster placement, lack of meaningful parental relationship) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re F.R.R., III, 193 S.W.3d 528 (Tenn. 2006) (appellate duty to reweigh clear-and-convincing factual findings)
- In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (standards for reviewing TPR findings and best-interest analysis)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (heightened proof—clear and convincing—required in TPR proceedings)
- Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of Durham Cnty., 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (due process protections in parental-rights proceedings)
- In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. 2010) (clear-and-convincing standard and appellate review in TPR cases)
- In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (requirements for relying on temporary custody orders under §36-1-113(g)(3))
- In re A.D.A., 84 S.W.3d 592 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (definition of "suitable home" includes safety and parental conduct)
- Keisling v. Keisling, 92 S.W.3d 374 (Tenn. 2002) (parental constitutional interest in custody)
- Jones v. Garrett, 92 S.W.3d 835 (Tenn. 2002) (credibility findings entitled to weight on appeal)
- State, Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Smith, 785 S.W.2d 336 (Tenn. 1990) (mental incompetence ground does not require willfulness)