In Re Mya H.
W2016-01285-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Jul 26, 2017Background
- Life Choices filed a petition (Nov. 26, 2014) to terminate parental rights to Mya H.; child was born during the marriage of Fred E. (Appellant) and Mother, so Appellant was a presumptive legal father.
- Appellant was served, denied abandonment allegations, and asserted the statutory presumption of parentage; Life Choices sought genetic testing and the trial court ordered Appellant to submit but he refused.
- Life Choices moved to rebut the presumption of parentage; the trial court found the presumption rebutted (Dec. 2, 2015) and later dismissed Appellant from the termination proceeding (May 18, 2016) relying on a 2016 statutory amendment enacted after the petition was filed.
- The trial court made its rebuttal finding and dismissal without an evidentiary hearing; the record contained no sworn testimony or stipulations proving Appellant refused testing.
- The Court of Appeals held the 2016 statutory provision (Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-102(28)(C)) could not be applied retroactively to a petition filed in 2014, reversed the dismissal and the termination order, vacated the finding that the presumption was rebutted, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could rebut the presumption of parentage without an evidentiary hearing | Life Choices: Appellant’s refusal to submit to court-ordered genetic testing rebuts the presumption by preponderance | Appellant: Presumption cannot be rebutted absent evidence and opportunity to present contrary proof | Court: Rebuttal requires evidence; absence of evidentiary hearing or sworn proof precludes finding presumption rebutted; vacated and remanded for hearing |
| Whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-102(28)(C) (2016 amendment) permitted dismissal of a presumptive father after rebuttal | Life Choices: New statute authorizes dismissal once presumption is rebutted | Appellant: Statute enacted after petition; cannot be applied retroactively | Court: 2016 amendment cannot be applied retroactively to petitions filed before its effective date; dismissal reversed |
| Whether refusal to take genetic test alone conclusively rebuts presumption | Life Choices: Refusal supports adverse inference sufficient to rebut | Appellant: Refusal is not conclusive; must be allowed to offer contrary proof | Court: Refusal may justify adverse inference but is not conclusive; court must allow contrary proof and hold an evidentiary hearing |
| Whether trial court’s orders terminating parental rights stand after improper dismissal of Appellant | Life Choices: Termination valid because presumptive father dismissed | Appellant: Termination invalid because dismissal resting on inapplicable statute and no proper rebuttal finding | Court: Termination order reversed as Appellant was improperly dismissed; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (higher standard of proof required in parental termination cases)
- In re D.L.B., 118 S.W.3d 360 (Tenn. 2003) (termination requires proof of statutory ground and best interests)
- In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (Tenn. 2002) (clear-and-convincing standard for termination inquiries)
- In re D.A.H., 142 S.W.3d 267 (Tenn. 2004) (retroactive application of termination-related statutory amendments limited by vested parental rights)
- In re T.K.Y., 205 S.W.3d 343 (Tenn. 2006) (parentage, adoption, and termination statutes construed together; biological father’s rights analyzed)
- Elliott v. Cobb, 320 S.W.3d 246 (Tenn. 2010) (statements of counsel are not evidence)