In Re Miracle M., W2017-00068-COA-R3-PT

Father (Jeremiah M.) is legal/putative father of two children removed from Mother’s custody in Aug. 2014 for medical neglect, malnourishment, and suspected abuse; Father was incarcerated at the time.
Children remained in DCS custody and were adjudicated dependent and neglected in Apr. 2015; they have lived with a pre‑adoptive foster mother since Aug. 2014.
Father had minimal contact: sporadic attendance at some medical appointments, no therapeutic visits during the statutory period, and no financial support (he receives Social Security disability income ~ $735/month).
DCS filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights on Nov. 17, 2015, alleging abandonment by willful failure to visit and support and persistence of conditions.
The juvenile court terminated Father’s rights on those three grounds and found termination to be in the children’s best interests; Father appealed.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed termination for abandonment (failure to visit and support) but reversed the persistence‑of‑conditions ground because the children were not removed from Father’s home.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCS)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Sufficiency of permanency‑plan/court notice re: abandonment	DCS: Permanency plan/court review and worker warnings satisfied Tenn. Code § 37‑2‑403 notice requirements	Father: Insufficient statutory notice of abandonment consequences	Held: Father’s own testimony confirmed he received the warning; notice sufficient (issue waived below but resolved against Father)
Abandonment — willful failure to support (4‑month window)	DCS: Father had means (disability income), paid no support, spent on cigarettes; no justifiable excuse	Father: Financial strain/bills prevented payments	Held: Clear and convincing evidence of willful failure to support; ground proven
Abandonment — willful failure to visit (4‑month window)	DCS: Father failed to arrange/insist on visitation despite worker outreach and explicit warning	Father: Attendance at some medical appointments constituted visitation	Held: Medical‑appointment attendance was sporadic/token; clear and convincing evidence of willful failure to visit
Persistence of conditions (Tenn. Code § 36‑1‑113(g)(3))	DCS: Conditions that led to removal persist and prevent safe return	Father: Ground applicable	Held: Reversed — statutory ground requires child removal from that parent’s home; children were removed from Mother’s custody, not Father’s (he was incarcerated), so ground inapplicable

In re Carrington, 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (standard of review and procedural protections in TPR cases)
In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (burden to prove statutory grounds and best interests by clear and convincing evidence)
In re Taylor B.W., 397 S.W.3d 105 (Tenn. 2013) (appellate review standards in TPR proceedings)
In re Adoption of A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793 (Tenn. 2007) (legal standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence supporting termination)
In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (definition and proof of willfulness in abandonment grounds)
In re Arteria H., 326 S.W.3d 167 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (purpose and application of persistence‑of‑conditions ground)
In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533 (Tenn. 2015) (overruling aspects of prior authority; cited regarding persistence‑of‑conditions context)