In Re Martese P., W2016-01922-COA-R3-PT

Child Martese P., born Nov. 2012, was removed from Mother (Kelsey K.) in Nov. 2013 after hair-follicle tests showed cocaine in both Mother and the child. DCS filed a dependency/neglect petition and obtained temporary custody.
At the Oct. 20, 2014 dependency hearing (order entered Dec. 16, 2014) the juvenile court found Martese a victim of "severe child abuse" under Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-102 and placed him in DCS custody; the circuit court later affirmed that finding and Mother did not further appeal.
DCS placed Martese with Petitioners James and Sarah C. in Sept. 2014; Petitioners cared for him continuously and intended to adopt him.
Petitioners filed to terminate Mother’s parental rights in Nov. 2015. At the Aug. 9, 2016 termination trial, testimony showed Petitioners provided a stable, nurturing home; Mother had inconsistent visitation, multiple positive drug tests during the case, and provided little financial support.
The juvenile court terminated Mother’s rights on the ground of prior finding of severe child abuse (Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(4)) and found termination was in the child’s best interest; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a prior finding of "severe child abuse" supports termination under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(4)	Petitioners: Prior court finding is a valid statutory ground for termination.	Mother: Even with the finding, termination was improper because she complied with DCS reunification requirements and was denied reunification opportunity.	Held: Prior final finding of severe child abuse is a valid ground; res judicata applies and relieves DCS of reunification duties.
Whether termination was in the child’s best interest under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(i)	Petitioners: Martese is bonded to Petitioners, thriving, and removal would harm him.	Mother: She is drug-free (claimed) and can provide for the child; termination is not necessary.	Held: Termination is in child’s best interest (stable home, strong bond with Petitioners, limited contact/relationship with Mother).

Keisling v. Keisling, 92 S.W.3d 374 (Tenn. 2002) (parents have a fundamental constitutional right to care, custody, and control of their children)
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (recognition of parental rights as a fundamental interest)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (standard of proof required in parental termination proceedings)
In re F.R.R., III, 193 S.W.3d 528 (Tenn. 2006) (termination requires clear and convincing evidence of a statutory ground and best interests)
In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (appellate standard of review and obligation to independently determine whether evidence meets clear-and-convincing standard)
In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533 (Tenn. 2015) (statutory grounds for termination and evidentiary requirements)
In re Dakota C.R., 404 S.W.3d 484 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (prior finding of severe child abuse can establish a ground for termination and relieve DCS of reunification efforts)
In re D.L.B., 118 S.W.3d 360 (Tenn. 2003) (best-interest analysis guidance)