In Re Nashay B.
M2017-00630-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Jan 10, 2018Background
- Mother (Natasha C.) is parent of two children removed April 2013 after she expressed suicidal ideation and left the children with a near-stranger; juvenile court found them dependent and neglected.
- DCS developed permanency plans (2013–2015) requiring housing, treatment, visitation, and $25/month child support; Mother had intermittent employment, chronic health (rheumatoid arthritis) and mental-health (bipolar) issues, and moved frequently.
- DCS filed to terminate parental rights on May 5, 2016 (grounds: abandonment — failure to visit, failure to support, failure to provide suitable home — and persistence of conditions).
- Trial (Nov. 2016): only DCS caseworker and Mother testified; Mother living in a women’s shelter months before trial, not consistently in treatment, had sporadic visitation and limited employment/financial evidence.
- Juvenile court terminated Mother’s rights finding three grounds (failure to support, failure to provide suitable home, persistence of conditions) and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
- Court of Appeals affirmed termination as to failure to provide a suitable home and persistence of conditions, and best interest; it reversed as to abandonment by willful failure to support for lack of evidence of Mother’s financial capacity during the relevant four-month period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother willfully failed to support the children in the 4 months before the petition | Mother made no payments in the relevant period; failure to pay supports abandonment | Mother lacked financial ability; evidence of employment/earnings in the 4-month window was not developed | Reversed as to this ground — DCS failed to prove willfulness because no evidence of Mother’s income/resources during the relevant period |
| Whether Mother abandoned by failing to provide a suitable home after removal (first 4 months) | DCS made reasonable efforts; Mother made minimal efforts and demonstrated lack of concern so unlikely to provide suitable home soon | Mother testified she tried and denied lack of assistance from DCS; disputed credibility | Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence that DCS’s efforts exceeded Mother’s and she failed to provide suitable home |
| Whether conditions that led to removal persisted so as to permit termination (persistence of conditions) | Children removed for mother’s instability and suicidal ideation; Mother remained unstable, untreated, transient for years, reducing likelihood of remedy | Mother had engaged in some services but progress was inconsistent; claimed treatment and employment attempts | Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence all statutory elements met (conditions persist, unlikely remedied soon, continuation harms children’s integration) |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest | Continuation with Mother would impede permanency; children bonded to pre-adoptive home, improved there; Mother not stably adjusted | Mother loves her children and had some compliance at times; argued for reunification chance | Affirmed — totality of statutory factors supports best interest finding (Mother’s instability, sporadic contact, bonding with foster parents outweigh countervailing facts) |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (recognizes parental custody as a fundamental right)
- In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (parental rights are not absolute; statutory scheme for termination)
- Nash-Putnam v. McCloud, 921 S.W.2d 170 (Tenn. 1996) (standard discussion of parental rights and termination)
- In re Adoption of Female Child, 896 S.W.2d 546 (Tenn. 1995) (parental rights constitutional protection)
- In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. 2010) (clear-and-convincing evidence standard in termination proceedings)
- Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896 (discusses meaning of clear and convincing evidence)
- In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533 (Tenn. 2015) (framework for termination analysis)
- In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (definitions of abandonment and persistence-of-conditions analysis)
- In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (best-interest factors and burdens of proof)