In Re M.E.N.J.Et AL.
E2017-01074-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Dec 27, 2017Background
- DCS removed first-born M.E.N.J. due to mother living with a friend whose parental rights had been previously terminated; mother’s second child M.A.L.D. was taken into custody at birth.
- DCS and the guardian ad litem sought termination of mother M.L.D.N.’s parental rights to both children; fathers’ rights had been previously terminated and are not part of this appeal.
- Permanency plan required safe stable housing, mental-health assessment/treatment, domestic-violence education, random drug screens, lawful income/transportation, cooperation with DCS, and regular visitation; mother completed some tasks but repeatedly failed to secure stable housing or consistently engage in recommended treatment.
- Mother remained transient/homeless (including sleeping in an alley and tent), associated with individuals with criminal/drug histories, declined certain DCS housing help, and missed or stopped mental-health treatment and appointments.
- The juvenile court found three statutory grounds for termination (Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(3), (g)(2), (g)(14)) by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in the children’s best interest; this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | DCS/Trial Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether persistent conditions (§36-1-113(g)(3)) supported termination | Only housing remained an unresolved condition; mother had engaged in therapy and obtained income and could likely obtain housing soon | Conditions that led to removal (unstable housing, associations with people with violence/drug histories, failed treatment engagement) persisted and were unlikely to be remedied soon | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence of persistent conditions |
| Whether mother substantially complied with the permanency plan (§36-1-113(g)(2)) | Mother completed assessments, attended therapy, visited children, and passed drug screens — showing substantial compliance | Mother never obtained stable housing, refused DCS assistance to apply for housing, stopped treatment, and had not substantially complied before the petition | Affirmed: mother failed to substantially comply |
| Whether mother failed to manifest ability/willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility (§36-1-113(g)(14)) | Mother argued she showed willingness (visits, began paying child support, therapy, income) and housing was the last barrier | At filing mother lacked stable housing, refused help, associated with risky individuals; placing children with her posed substantial risk of harm | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence under (g)(14) |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest (§36-1-113(i)) | Mother argued regular visitation, bond, recent progress, and no expert showing harm supported preservation of parental rights | Children had lived with foster parents for over a year, were thriving, lacked risk with adoptive placement; mother had not made lasting changes and posed risk of destabilizing children | Affirmed: termination is in the children’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (establishes parental right to custody as fundamental)
- In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (standards for termination procedure and best-interest analysis)
- In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (permanency-plan compliance and reasonableness of plan requirements)
- In re Carrington, 483 S.W.3d 507 (standard of appellate review in termination appeals)