In Re Sebashtian K., E2020-01439-COA-R3-PT

May 22, 2018 drug raid uncovered illegal drugs and severely unsanitary home; DCS removed three young children who suffered severe developmental delays and medical issues (twins with failure to thrive, liver/kidney failure).
Parents tested positive for multiple controlled substances; Mother had longstanding untreated mental-health diagnoses and both parents had criminal charges and prior relinquishment of parental rights to other children.
Juvenile court adjudicated the children dependent and neglected and previously found Mother and Father committed severe child abuse as to the twins. Children were placed in the same foster home and received intensive medical and therapeutic care.
DCS developed a reunification plan requiring mental-health and substance-abuse treatment, parenting and domestic-violence classes, stable housing, proof of income, child support, and visitation; parents repeatedly failed to complete requirements and showed ongoing instability.
DCS petitioned to terminate parental rights (grounds: severe child abuse, persistence of conditions; additional ground against Father: failure to manifest ability/willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility). Trial court terminated both parents’ rights, finding statutory grounds proved by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in the children’s best interests; this court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DCS)	Defendant's Argument (Parents)	Held
Denial of continuance (Mother)	No good cause; Mother had ample prior time	Mother needed time to finish plan and be reunified	Denial not an abuse of discretion; no unfair prejudice
Severe child abuse (g4)	Prior adjudication finding is conclusive proof of severe abuse	(Not contested on appeal)	Prior finding preclusive; supports termination for both parents
Persistence of conditions (g3)	Conditions that caused removal persist; unlikely remedied soon; harms child’s integration	Mother argued recent improvements and need for time; both blamed DCS	Clear and convincing evidence supports g3 for both parents
Failure to manifest ability/willingness (g14) — Father	Father has not shown ability/willingness to assume custody/financial responsibility; placing children with him risks substantial harm	Father claimed completed classes, income, and needs a short time to secure housing	Clear and convincing evidence supports g14 as to Father
Best interests	Termination promotes stability, continued medical care, and adoption by bonded foster family	Parents argued improvements and that termination is not necessary	Court found termination served children’s best interests under statutory factors

In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533 (Tenn. 2015) (procedural and statutory framework for terminating parental rights)
In re Bernard T., 319 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. 2010) (clear-and-convincing proof requirement in termination proceedings)
Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896 (Tenn. 1992) (definition/description of clear and convincing evidence)
In re Taylor B.W., 397 S.W.3d 105 (Tenn. 2013) (standard of review: de novo with presumption of correctness for trial facts)
In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (persistence-of-conditions focuses on results of parents’ efforts)
In re Heaven L.F., 311 S.W.3d 435 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (prior adjudication of abuse can have preclusive effect)
In re Neveah M., 614 S.W.3d 659 (Tenn. 2020) (g14 requires proof of both prongs: lack of manifest ability/willingness and substantial-risk-of-harm)
In re Gabriella D., 531 S.W.3d 662 (Tenn. 2017) (best-interest factors are illustrative and courts must consider all relevant proof)
In re Dakota C.R., 404 S.W.3d 484 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (failed long-term rehabilitative efforts justify finding little likelihood of remedy)
Wells v. Tennessee Bd. of Regents, 9 S.W.3d 779 (Tenn. 1999) (appellate deference to trial court credibility determinations)