In re: M. D., M2015-01023-COA-R3-JV

Child born 2008; parents divorced 2011 with alternating two-day custody; DCS investigated Father beginning 2011–2012 after allegations of drug exposure and later sexual abuse disclosures.
In November 2012 the Child underwent a forensic interview at the Child Advocacy Center; recorded interview and subsequent disclosures described inappropriate sexual touching by Father.
Physical exam was inconclusive; Father submitted to a psychosexual evaluation that rated him "low risk," but the evaluator relied largely on Father’s self-report.
DCS filed a petition alleging the Child was dependent and neglected and a victim of severe abuse; Juvenile Court found dependency/neglect in 2013; Father sought de novo trial in Circuit Court.
At trial the court viewed the forensic interview, heard testimony from two counselors and other witnesses, and observed Father’s in-court demeanor; the court found by clear and convincing evidence that the Child was dependent and neglected and a victim of severe abuse by Father, and found Father addicted to prescription drugs.
Trial court limited contact and required clear-and-convincing proof before any return; on appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting Father’s attacks on credibility and holding the evidence met the clear-and-convincing standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCS/Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence established that the Child is dependent and neglected and a victim of severe abuse	Forensic interview, consistent disclosures over time, therapy reports and witnesses suffice to prove severe abuse and dependency by clear and convincing evidence	Child’s statements inconsistent at times; some adult witnesses biased; interactions with Father showed normal behavior—evidence insufficient	Affirmed: appellate court held evidence does not preponderate against trial court and meets clear-and-convincing standard
Whether trial court erred in considering Father’s prescription drug use in assessing credibility and finding severe abuse	DCS/Mother: court properly considered Father’s drug use and observed in-court behavior as relevant to credibility and memory	Father: drug use is irrelevant and cannot be used to infer abuse; reliance on medication status was improper	Affirmed: court may consider witness intoxication/addiction and its effect on perception, memory, and credibility when assessing testimony; here it was used to discount Father’s self-report, not as direct proof of abuse

In re S.J., 387 S.W.3d 576 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (clear-and-convincing requirement for severe child abuse in dependency proceedings)
In re C.W.W., 37 S.W.3d 467 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (definition and standard for clear and convincing evidence)
In re H.L.F., 297 S.W.3d 223 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (review standard for dependency findings)
Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896 (Tenn. 1992) (clear-and-convincing standard eliminates substantial doubt)
Wells v. Tennessee Bd. of Regents, 9 S.W.3d 779 (Tenn. 1999) (deference to trial court credibility findings absent clear and convincing contrary evidence)
Hughes v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, 340 S.W.3d 352 (Tenn. 2011) (trial judge’s advantage in assessing witness demeanor and credibility)
State v. D’Alessio, 848 A.2d 1118 (R.I. 2004) (intoxication admissible to attack witness credibility and ability to recall)