In Re: Tanya G., E2016-02451-COA-R3-PT

Mother (LaToya G.) gave birth to Tanya in Feb 2016; DCS took custody after mother was involuntarily committed and Tanya was found dependent and neglected.
DCS filed to terminate Mother’s parental rights on March 2, 2016, alleging mental incompetence under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(8)(B).
Record showed long history of severe mental illness (diagnoses including schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder), multiple involuntary hospitalizations, documented psychotic episodes, and prior terminations of parental rights to older children on similar grounds.
Expert psychologist (Dr. Murray) evaluated Mother, concluded she was overtly psychotic, untreated, lacked adaptive resources, and was unlikely to cooperate with or sustain treatment necessary to parent in the near future.
DCS caseworker and visitation reports documented erratic, inappropriate behavior during supervised visits (refusing care, profanity, exposing herself), leading to suspension of visits; foster parents testified Tanya’s medical needs are being met and they intend to adopt.
Juvenile Court terminated Mother’s parental rights for mental incompetence and found termination to be in Tanya’s best interest; Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	DCS’s Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination for mental incompetence (Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(8)(B))	Mother: Court relied on past history, not current evidence; medication might restore parenting capacity; evidence insufficient to show inability in near future.	DCS: Extensive recent and historical evidence (hospitalizations, evaluations, expert opinion, visitation behavior) shows present incapacity and low likelihood of near-term improvement.	Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supports mental incompetence ground.
Whether termination was in the child’s best interest (Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(i))	Mother: Best-interest finding rests mainly on foster mother’s statement that placement is pre-adoptive.	DCS: Child has significant medical needs, is thriving in foster placement, permanency requires stable, capable caregivers; mother’s mental status would be detrimental.	Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence termination is in Tanya’s best interest.
Jurisdictional/timeliness challenge to appeal (defective unsigned notice of appeal)	Mother: N/A (responding to defect)	DCS: Notice was jurisdictionally deficient and untimely because not properly signed.	Court: Declined to dismiss; treated prematurely filed notice as timely; Mother’s handwritten name satisfied statutory requirement under circumstances.

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (parental rights are fundamental)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (heightened proof required in termination proceedings)
In re Adoption of A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793 (Tenn. 2007) (statutory framework for termination: grounds and best-interest standards)
State Dep’t of Children’s Servs. v. C.H.K., 154 S.W.3d 586 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (procedural standards in termination cases)