In Re: Lorenda B.
M2016-01841-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Apr 19, 2017Background
- Child born March 2005; DCS involvement began November 2013 due to Mother’s erratic behavior, unaddressed mental-health issues, and the Child’s insufficient education; Child entered foster care February 2014 and remained there.
- Mother has historical and recent psychological findings indicating thought disorder / psychotic-spectrum diagnoses and repeatedly refused psychotropic medication on religious grounds; she required but would not follow mental-health recommendations in permanency plans.
- Permanency plans (2014 and 2015) required mental-health and psychological assessments and compliance, stable housing, legal income, and school attendance for the Child; DCS assisted with referrals but Mother rejected providers unless they met her strict criteria (e.g., experience with alleged satanic ritual abuse).
- Mother expressed persistent paranoid beliefs at trial (e.g., organ trafficking, satanic conspiracies) and made concerning statements to the Child and third parties; visitation was suspended after the Child expressed a desire to stop visits.
- Juvenile Court terminated Mother’s parental rights on multiple statutory grounds and found termination in the Child’s best interest; on appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed some grounds (substantial noncompliance with permanency plan; mental incompetence), reversed others (willful failure to support; persistence of conditions), and affirmed the best-interest determination.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DCS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether willful failure to support (abandonment) was proven | Mother disputed failure; claimed she had income/assistance | DCS relied on statutory four-month support/visit period | Reversed — record lacked clear-and-convincing proof for the required 4-month period |
| Whether persistence of conditions justified termination | Mother argued conditions not shown or appeal of dependency order pending | DCS relied on prior dependency findings | Reversed — dependency order on appeal cannot alone support this ground; not established by clear-and-convincing evidence |
| Whether Mother substantially noncomplied with permanency plan | Mother argued compliance in some areas and disputed reasonableness | DCS pointed to failure to follow mental-health recommendations central to plan | Affirmed — clear-and-convincing evidence Mother didn’t comply with major plan obligations (mental-health treatment) |
| Whether Mother is mentally incompetent to parent under §36-1-113(g)(8) | Mother argued prior assessments insufficient and no expert tied diagnosis to parenting inability | DCS relied on clinical diagnoses, Mother’s testimony, and behavior showing impairing paranoia | Affirmed — clear-and-convincing evidence Mother’s untreated, persistent mental condition rendered her unlikely to parent safely in near future |
| Whether termination is in Child’s best interest | Mother emphasized bond and some compliance (housing/employment) | DCS emphasized foster placement stability, Child’s bond with foster parents, and risks from Mother’s mental state | Affirmed — best-interest factors weighed in favor of termination given Child’s safety and permanency needs |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognizes parental custody as a fundamental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (requires clear-and-convincing proof in termination proceedings)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (parental rights as fundamental liberty interest)
- Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (due process in parental-rights hearings)
- Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573 (state’s parens patriae role to protect children)
- In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. standard on termination proceedings and findings requirement)
- In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (review standard and clear-and-convincing evidence discussion)
- In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Court of Appeals must review each ground and best-interest findings)