In re Navada N.
498 S.W.3d 579
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Two children (Ryan b.2000; Navada b.2007) were placed in DCS custody after allegations of sexual abuse by Ryan, parental drug use, and parents having sex with children present; custody became foster care and adoption became the permanency goal.
- DCS filed to terminate Mother (Jennifer C.) and Father (Tommy N.) parental rights (Sept. 2014), alleging multiple abandonment theories, substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, and persistence of conditions; trial occurred April–May 2015.
- Mother had a long history of cocaine use, multiple treatment attempts, positive drug screens, intermittent hospitalizations, and was incarcerated at trial; she had not paid formal support and had inconsistent visitation.
- Father had repeated incarcerations (including continuous incarceration from Jan. 14, 2014, through trial), minimal contact/participation with DCS before incarceration, no formal child-support payments, and no visitation during the relevant four-month window prior to his latest incarceration.
- Trial court terminated both parents’ rights, finding multiple grounds proved; on appeal the court (Tenn. Ct. App.) affirmed best-interest finding but vacated/reversed several specific statutory grounds due to inadequate findings or inapplicability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Parent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory grounds of abandonment/failure-to-visit/support/suitable-home/substantial noncompliance/persistence of conditions were proven | DCS: multiple statutory definitions of abandonment and other grounds were met by parents’ conduct, noncompliance, and incarceration history | Parents: contest some grounds as unsupported (Father: child wasn’t removed from his home so suitable-home ground inapplicable; both: lack of clear findings re: income/ability; Mother: incarceration-based grounds inapplicable) | Court affirmed some grounds (Mother: failure to establish suitable home; persistence of conditions; Father: abandonment by incarcerated parent for failure to visit), but vacated or reversed other grounds where written findings or statutory prerequisites were lacking or evidence of willfulness/ability was insufficient |
| Whether trial court properly applied the incarcerated-parent abandonment definitions to Mother | DCS: Mother’s criminal conduct/arrears and arrest supported incarceration-based abandonment findings | Mother: was not incarcerated during the statutory 4-month period preceding the petition filing, so incarcerated-parent definitions do not apply | Held: Mother was not incarcerated during the relevant period, so incarcerated-parent abandonment definitions did not apply; those findings reversed |
| Whether trial court permissibly found substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans | DCS: parents failed to substantially comply with multiple plan responsibilities | Parents: plans were unclear/confusing; DCS failed to present a clear, signed "statement of responsibilities" making noncompliance finding unreliable | Held: Court vacated the noncompliance findings because DCS’s permanency plans lacked a clear, discrete statement of parental responsibilities across multiple plans, making substantial-noncompliance findings unsustainable |
| Whether termination was in children’s best interest | DCS: children had stable, pre-adoptive placements; parents’ conduct and lack of lasting change made termination appropriate | Parents: argued best-interest finding erroneous (Mother emphasized efforts, Father emphasized letter-writing and class completion) | Held: Court affirmed that termination was in the children’s best interest based on parents’ ongoing problems (Mother’s persistent drug use; Father’s incarceration/limited pre-incarceration efforts) and children’s substantial integration into stable foster homes |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental custody is a fundamental liberty interest)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (heightened proof required to terminate parental rights)
- In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (standards for parental-rights termination review)
- In re Adoption of Angela E., 402 S.W.3d 636 (Tenn. 2013) (income/expense proof needed to establish willful failure to support)
- In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (appellate courts must review each ground and best-interest determination even if not raised)
- In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (definition/analysis of "willfulness" and incarcerated-parent abandonment)
- Williams v. City of Burns, 465 S.W.3d 96 (Tenn. 2015) (trial court speaks through written orders; oral findings insufficient)