In Re: Liam S.
E2016-02461-COA-R3-PT
Tenn. Ct. App.Oct 4, 2017Background
- Two children (b.2009 and 2012) were removed after parental arrests and positive drug tests; children adjudicated dependent/neglected and placed in foster care in 2014.
- Parents had recurring substance-abuse, unstable housing, and domestic-violence/parenting concerns; multiple permanency plans required assessments, treatment, housing, employment/transportation, and child support.
- Mother repeatedly relapsed, entered a year-long, unlicensed faith-based program (Life Changers) in Sept. 2015, which limited her ability to work, pay support, and attend some visits; she argued the program achieved lasting sobriety but still required aftercare and transitional housing.
- Father had intermittent compliance, failed some drug testing and treatment recommendations, lived with a questionable roommate, and had not completed required parenting/drug-education components.
- DCS filed to terminate both parents’ rights (May 20, 2016) on grounds of abandonment (failure to visit/pay support/establish suitable home), substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, and persistence of conditions; bench trial found clear and convincing evidence for those grounds and that termination was in the children’s best interest.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court as to statutory grounds for termination but reversed (vacated) the best-interest findings and the terminations themselves, remanding for further proceedings limited to best-interest determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Parents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother abandoned children by willfully failing to pay child support (4-month window) | Mother made no support payments (only one small payment overall); enrollment in Life Changers was voluntary and did not excuse nonpayment | Mother lacked ability to pay while in program and had limited work ability; not willful | Held for DCS: clear & convincing evidence of willful failure to pay (abandonment) |
| Whether Mother abandoned by willful failure to visit (4-month window) | Mother attended only 2 of 4 monthly visits; probationary status at program caused missed visits but was self-imposed by enrolling | Mother’s missed visits resulted from Life Changers’ probationary restrictions and not willful abandonment | Held for DCS: visits were token; clear & convincing evidence of willful failure to visit (abandonment) |
| Whether each parent abandoned by failing to provide a suitable home | DCS provided housing resources; parents either remained in unstable drug-using residences (Mother) or lived with questionable roommate and could not present safe home (Father) | Parents claimed housing plans and some progress; Father said he found housing and had income; Mother pointed to imminent transitional housing after program | Held for DCS: clear & convincing evidence parents failed to establish suitable homes despite DCS assistance (abandonment) |
| Whether each parent substantially noncomplied with permanency plan, and whether conditions that led to removal persist | Parents failed to complete required drug/parenting treatment, maintain stable housing, and pay support; conditions (substance abuse, unsafe housing) likely to persist | Parents cited partial compliance, recent sobriety (Mother), employment and visitation (Father) | Held for DCS: clear & convincing evidence of substantial noncompliance and persistence of conditions; grounds affirmed. However, best-interest finding reversed and terminations vacated pending remand solely on best-interest issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (parental rights are fundamental liberty interests)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (heightened burden of proof required in parental termination)
- In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (appellate standard of review in termination cases; de novo review of legal conclusions)
- In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (willfulness and application of abandonment grounds; limits on persistence-of-conditions application)
- In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (permanency-plan reasonableness and substantial noncompliance analysis)
- In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (statutory best-interest and grounds analysis)
- In re C.W.W., 37 S.W.3d 467 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (a single statutory ground can support termination)