In Re Mariah H., E2016-02091-COA-R3-PT

Child Mariah born June 2015 and placed in DCS custody two days later; foster placement since June 26, 2015.
Mother identified Stafford B. (Father) as the probable father shortly after birth; DNA later confirmed paternity.
DCS relieved of reasonable reunification efforts for Father because his parental rights to another child had previously been involuntarily terminated for abandonment.
DCS caseworker repeatedly contacted Father (July 2015 onward), encouraged visitation, offered weekend/evening visits, arranged DNA testing, and warned that failure to visit could lead to termination; Father visited only once (June 20, 2016) for ~2 hours.
DCS filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights on February 2, 2016; trial court found Father abandoned the child by willfully failing to visit during the four months preceding the petition and that termination was in the child’s best interest; Father appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCS)	Defendant's Argument (Stafford)	Held
Whether Father abandoned the child by willful failure to visit during the four months before the petition	Father was contacted, warned, had opportunity to visit, but made no attempts during the determinative period (Oct 2, 2015–Feb 1, 2016) — willful failure to visit	Work schedule, lack of vehicle/driver’s license, and limited finances made visits impracticable and thus not willful	Held: Trial court’s finding of willful abandonment supported by clear and convincing evidence; affirmed
Whether termination was in the child’s best interest	Child bonded to foster family, thriving, foster parents willing to adopt; Father lacks relationship, support history, or a viable custody plan	Father contends he can provide and should be allowed to parent if given opportunity	Held: Termination is in child’s best interest; affirmed

In re F.R.R., III, 193 S.W.3d 528 (Tenn. 2006) (appellate standard for reviewing termination findings under clear-and-convincing proof)
In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (procedural guidance on separate grounds and best-interest determinations)
In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. 2010) (definition and proof standard for termination elements)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parents’ fundamental liberty interest and clear-and-convincing standard)
Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (due process and fundamentally fair procedures in parental-rights cases)
Jones v. Garrett, 92 S.W.3d 835 (Tenn. 2002) (deference to trial court credibility findings on appeal)
In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (willfulness defined for failure-to-visit abandonment)
In re Adoption of A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793 (Tenn. 2007) (statutory construction of abandonment provisions)
In re Angela E., 402 S.W.3d 636 (Tenn. 2013) (when third-party conduct excuses failure to visit)
White v. Moody, 171 S.W.3d 187 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (best-interest analysis perspective from the child’s viewpoint)