In Re Quadayvon H
E2016-00445-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Sep 30, 2016Background
- Father (Kevin H.) and Mother had two minor children (Quadayvon b.2007; Eric b.2011). Mother’s parental rights were previously terminated; Father’s rights were the subject of the termination petition.
- Children were removed initially in 2009 (mother’s drug use; father incarcerated) and again in 2012 after an altercation involving Father and the family; children remained in DCS custody and in foster care.
- DCS filed to terminate Father’s rights (June 2015) alleging (1) persistence of conditions and (2) mental incompetence under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g).
- Trial evidence included a forensic psychologist’s evaluation (Dr. Murray: borderline IQ ~73; symptoms consistent with schizoaffective disorder, thought disorder, substance/alcohol concerns; limited confidence that Father is unable to parent), testimony from multiple social workers about Father’s hostile outbursts and visitation issues, foster parents’ and child’s testimony expressing fear or distress after visits.
- Juvenile court found both statutory grounds proved by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in the children’s best interests; Father appealed.
- Court of Appeals reversed: (1) persistence-of-conditions ground inapplicable because record does not show children were removed from Father’s home; (2) mental-incompetence ground not proved by clear and convincing evidence; best-interest analysis was therefore not reached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State/DCS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father is "mentally incompetent" under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(8)(B) | Dr. Murray and DCS argued Father’s psychiatric symptoms, borderline IQ, anger/aggression and alcohol use render him presently and likely permanently unable to parent. | Father argued he engaged in treatment, completed services, denies significant substance misuse, disputes Dr. Murray’s conclusions and contends improvements in functioning. | Reversed — court held evidence did not meet clear-and-convincing standard; expert would not testify to reasonable medical certainty that Father is unable to parent. |
| Whether "persistence of conditions" under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(3) applies | DCS argued the conditions giving rise to removal persisted (anger, parenting deficits, substance/alcohol concerns) preventing safe return. | Father argued the statutory threshold requires that the child was removed from the parent’s home; here he was incarcerated at first removal and record unclear for second removal. | Reversed — ground inapplicable where children were not shown to have been removed from Father’s home; clear-and-convincing standard not met. |
| Whether termination is in the children’s best interest | DCS argued ongoing safety risks, children’s distress after visits, and foster family’s stability support termination. | Father argued love for children, steps taken (housing, services), and disputed DCS claims; urged continued opportunity to parent. | Not decided — appellate court pretermitted best-interest analysis after reversing statutory findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.C.D., 254 S.W.3d 432 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (parental rights are fundamental but not absolute)
- In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (procedural standards for termination proceedings)
- In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (parental rights continue absent relinquishment or conduct warranting termination)
- In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (existence of any statutory ground supports termination)
- In re Adoption of Angela E., 402 S.W.3d 636 (Tenn.) (clear-and-convincing standard defined and appellate review framework)
- In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (heightened burden of proof in termination cases)
- In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539 (Tenn. 2002) (elements and proof required for persistence-of-conditions ground)
- In re Dakota C.R., 404 S.W.3d 484 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (purpose of persistence-of-conditions ground explained)
- State, Dep’t of Children’s Servs. v. Mims, 285 S.W.3d 435 (Tenn. Ct. App.) (termination appropriate when lifelong incapacity cannot be remediated by services)