In Re Sydney B., 537 S.W.3d 452

Sydney B., born 2009, was placed in the custody of maternal great-uncle and great-aunt (Joseph and Emery S.) by guardianship in 2012; Father (Chance B.) was legally acknowledged as the father.
Father filed a juvenile court parentage petition in Dec. 2014 and obtained temporary supervised visitation agreements in early 2015; no formal child-support order was ever entered.
Appellants filed a chancery petition in June 2015 to terminate both parents’ rights and to adopt, alleging abandonment by willful failure to support (four-month period before the petition) and by willful failure to visit.
At trial, Father admitted he paid no support in the relevant four-month window, acknowledged the duty to support, and testified he could have paid but waited for a support order and because Appellants limited visitation; Appellants refused later attempted payments after the termination petition was filed.
The trial court found Father’s failure to support and visit was not willful because he was actively litigating custody/visitation and dismissed the petition as to Father; Appellants appealed.
The Court of Appeals reversed as to willful failure to support, holding Father’s inaction (despite ability and knowledge of duty) established willfulness; remanded for a best-interest hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Father willfully failed to support the child for the four months before the termination petition (abandonment under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-102(1)(A)(i))	Appellants: Father had ability and duty to pay, made no effort to establish support, and his excuses (no order; limited visitation) do not negate willfulness	Father: He was actively litigating parentage/visitation and reasonably awaited a child-support determination; Appellants prevented visitation and refused later payments	Court: Reversed trial court — Father willfully failed to support; ground for termination proven. Case remanded for best-interest determination.

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental custody rights are fundamental liberty interests)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (termination requires heightened evidentiary standard)
In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (parental rights are fundamental but not absolute; framework for termination analysis)
In re Adoption of A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793 (Tenn. 2007) (active litigation to regain custody can negate willfulness for failure-to-visit abandonment)
In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (clear-and-convincing evidence standard defined)
State v. Wilson, 132 S.W.3d 340 (Tenn. 2004) (parents owe duty of child support even absent a court order)