In re M.E.T.
W2016-00682-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Nov 29, 2016Background
- Child born July 2013; mother left hospital without him and was found mentally unstable; child placed in DCS custody August 2013 and adjudicated dependent and neglected.
- Father and mother had dated 2009–2012; father was not on the birth certificate and DCS could not locate him until paternal grandmother provided correct name spelling in early 2015.
- DCS met father in jail in April 2015, explained permanency plan and termination criteria, and arranged DNA testing; paternity confirmed in July 2015; DCS filed to terminate parental rights July 2015 (amended Nov. 2015).
- Father has an extensive criminal history and numerous incarcerations during the child’s life; he never visited the child nor provided financial support; requested visitation only the day before trial (Feb. 2016).
- Trial court found clear and convincing evidence of abandonment by an incarcerated parent (willful failure to visit/support and wanton disregard) and persistence of conditions; also found termination is in the child’s best interest.
- On appeal, this Court affirmed termination for abandonment but reversed the persistence-of-conditions ground because the child had not been removed from father’s custody by court order; best-interest finding was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds exist for abandonment under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(iv) | Father knew of mother’s pregnancy and engaged in criminal conduct and repeated incarceration showing wanton disregard; he willfully failed to visit or support the child | Father claims he did not know the child was his until DNA results in July 2015 and thus could not have willfully abandoned or shown wanton disregard before that time | Court held clear and convincing evidence of abandonment: father knew of the child’s existence, willfully failed to visit/support, and his criminal conduct demonstrated wanton disregard; ground upheld |
| Whether persistence of conditions under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(3) justified termination | DCS argued continued conditions prevented safe return and persisted | Father argued ground inapplicable because child was not removed from his custody by court order | Court held ground inapplicable and vacated this basis for termination (child not removed from father by order) |
| Whether termination is in the child’s best interest under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(i) | DCS: father’s criminal history, lack of visitation/support, instability, and child’s strong bonds with long-term foster parents support termination | Father: recent release left insufficient time to make lasting adjustment or form relationship | Court held termination is in child’s best interest: factors (no visitation, no meaningful relationship, criminal activity, inability to provide safe/stable care, foster home stability) weighed for termination |
| Scope of appellate review and standard of proof | N/A (procedural) | N/A | Court applied de novo review of legal conclusions and reviewed factual findings under Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d) while assessing whether facts meet the clear-and-convincing standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (recognizes fundamental parental right)
- In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (framework for termination: statutory grounds then best-interest analysis)
- In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (wanton disregard and incarceration-related abandonment principles)
- In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. 2010) (clear-and-convincing evidence standard explanation)
- Nash-Putnam v. McCloud, 921 S.W.2d 170 (Tenn. 1996) (parental rights are statutory; termination only on statutory grounds)