In Re Steevie A., W2016-02577-COA-R3-PT

Background

Child born March 2013; removed from parents’ custody in Sept 2014 after allegations of drug exposure, unsafe sleeping conditions, and father’s substance use and domestic violence. Child placed with maternal aunt and uncle (Legal Guardians) and later transitioned to family friends who sought to adopt (Prospective Adoptive Parents).
Juvenile court adjudicated the child dependent and neglected in Dec 2014; visitation for Father was suspended in Dec 2014 pending sobriety and a petition to reinstate visitation. DCS involvement continued through April 2015.
Legal Guardians (and later Prospective Adoptive Parents) filed termination petitions; an October 16, 2015 petition against Father alleged: (1) abandonment — willful failure to visit, (2) abandonment — willful failure to support, (3) abandonment — failure to establish a suitable home, and (4) persistence of conditions.
Father conceded no visitation and no support during the four months before the operative petition (June–Oct 2015), but testified he became sober starting Jan 2015, completed rehab, provided drug screens, obtained housing and employment, and paid child support only after a December 2015 court order.
Trial court found all four statutory grounds proven by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in the child’s best interest. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed termination for willful failure to visit and support and best-interest findings, but reversed the findings as to failure to establish a suitable home and persistence of conditions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Father’s failure to visit in the 4 months before the petition "willful"?	Petitioners: Father made no real effort to reinstate court-ordered visitation and was thus willfully absent.	Father: Legal Guardians thwarted his attempts to contact/visit (calls rebuffed); he was pursuing sobriety.	Held: Willful — Father knew he had to petition the court to resume visits, made only limited contacts, did not pursue court relief, so failure to visit was willful.
Was Father’s failure to support in the 4-month period willful?	Petitioners: Father had ability and duty to support but did not do so until court-ordered.	Father: He tried to offer support but was rebuffed and lacked address; later complied when parties/state initiated support proceedings.	Held: Willful — court credited guardian’s denial of an offer and found Father voluntarily failed to pay support before the petition.
Was there abandonment for failure to establish a suitable home (four months after removal)?	Petitioners: Father failed to remedy the unsafe home conditions that caused removal.	Father: Has suitable housing, sobriety, employment and took steps toward stability.	Held: Not proven — reversed. Court found the record insufficient to show DCS made the statutorily required reasonable efforts in the four months after removal.
Did persistent conditions exist such that child’s return was unsafe?	Petitioners: Conditions (substance abuse, unsafe home, domestic violence) persisted and impeded return.	Father: Demonstrated sobriety, treatment, stable housing and no evidence of ongoing substance use or violence at trial.	Held: Not proven — reversed. Court concluded Petitioners failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the removing conditions persisted at trial.

Key Cases Cited

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental rights are fundamental liberty interests)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (heightened proof required before termination of parental rights)
In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (parental rights not absolute; standards for termination)
In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (standard of review and statutory framework for termination)
In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (definition and analysis of "willfulness" in abandonment context)