In Re: Savanna C., E2016-01703-COA-R3-PT

Child born 2014; Maternal grandparents obtained emergency custody November 2014 after parents’ instability and drug issues; juvenile court adjudicated the child dependent and neglected July 16, 2015 and ordered supervised visitation at Path Finders.
Father tested positive for controlled substances in late 2014/early 2015, had arrests (DUI May 16, 2015; public intoxication), and had unstable housing and intermittent employment during the relevant period.
Path Finders required a per-visit fee ($45); juvenile court set supervised visitation there and listed benchmarks (clean drug screens, counseling, stable housing/employment) for expanded visitation.
Maternal grandparents filed a termination and adoption petition in circuit court on September 21, 2015 alleging abandonment by willful failure to visit/support and persistence of conditions.
Trial court initially denied termination (April 29, 2016) after considering visits that occurred post-petition; after a motion to alter/amend, the court (July 8, 2016) found clear and convincing evidence Father willfully abandoned the child by failing to visit during the statutory four-month period and that termination was in the child’s best interest.
Father appealed solely on abandonment and subject-matter/jurisdiction as to persistence of conditions; this Court affirmed the termination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Grandparents)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Whether Father willfully abandoned the child by failing to visit for the four months before the petition	Father had the ability to visit, chose not to, and spent funds on drugs/entertainment rather than paying Path Finders fees; prior conduct and missed visits show willfulness	Failure to visit was not willful because of inability to pay the visitation fee, interference/enmity with grandparents, and active juvenile-court litigation	Affirmed: Court found by clear and convincing evidence Father willfully failed to visit during the relevant period and abandonment established
Whether the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction/justiciability to consider persistence-of-conditions ground because six months had not elapsed	Grandparents pleaded persistence of conditions as alternative ground	Father argued timing/jurisdiction barred consideration	Court held circuit court had jurisdiction over termination claims; but trial court found one statutory ground (abandonment) and did not rule on persistence — issue not properly before the appellate court

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (heightened clear-and-convincing standard required in termination proceedings)
Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of Durham Cnty., N.C., 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (due-process requirement of fundamentally fair procedures for parents)
In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. 2010) (clarifying clear-and-convincing standard in parental termination cases)
In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (appellate review duties in termination cases and separate best-interest analysis)
In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (definition of willfulness for failure-to-visit abandonment)
In re Adoption of A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793 (Tenn. 2007) (distinguishing cases where parents actively litigate custody and are thwarted from visiting)
In re Adoption of Angela E., 402 S.W.3d 636 (Tenn. 2013) (parent’s failure to pursue visitation can support willfulness finding)
Jones v. Garrett, 92 S.W.3d 835 (Tenn. 2002) (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings)