In Re Trinity S.
E2021-00098-COA-R3-PT
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Aug 9, 2021Background
- Mother (Chelsie S.) had three children removed for parental substance abuse: Trinity and James (removed March 21, 2019) and Oaklee (removed Oct. 24, 2019 for in‑utero drug exposure). All three remained in the same foster home throughout the case.
- Juvenile court adjudicated the children dependent and neglected in Jan. 2020 and found Mother had severely abused Oaklee by using drugs during pregnancy; that adjudication was not appealed.
- DCS filed to terminate Mother’s parental rights in May 2020; the one‑day termination hearing was held by video conference on Jan. 5, 2021 after the juvenile court denied Mother’s motion to continue for an in‑person hearing.
- The juvenile court found two statutory grounds proven by clear and convincing evidence: (1) persistence of conditions (Tenn. Code Ann. § 36‑1‑113(g)(3)) and (2) severe child abuse (Tenn. Code Ann. § 36‑1‑113(g)(4)), and it concluded termination was in the children’s best interest.
- Mother appealed, arguing denial of her motion to continue (video hearing) violated due process and that termination was not in the children’s best interest; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of continuance / video hearing (due process) | Video hearing deprived Mother of a meaningful hearing, impaired cross‑examination/evidence | COVID restrictions justified video; Mother attended with counsel, cross‑examined, introduced evidence, and no prejudice shown | Denial was not an abuse of discretion; no due process violation |
| Persistence of conditions (§ 36‑1‑113(g)(3)) | (Not contested on appeal) | Mother failed to remedy substance abuse, lacked stable housing/income, continued drug use and risky associations | Ground established; supports termination |
| Severe child abuse (§ 36‑1‑113(g)(4)) | (Not appealed from prior adjudication) | Prior final adjudication found Mother severely abused Oaklee by in‑utero drug exposure; res judicata applies | Prior adjudication precludes relitigation; ground established as to all children |
| Best interest of the children | Maintained visitation; relationship with Trinity; argued some factors inapplicable | Children bonded to foster parents, have stability; Mother’s ongoing drug use, instability, criminal history weigh against reunification | Court found, by combined proof, termination is in children’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (parents have a fundamental right to care, custody, and control of their children)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (termination proceedings require balancing private interests against state procedures)
- Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cnty., N.C., 452 U.S. 18 (parental interest in termination proceedings is commanding)
- In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. 2010) (parental rights are fundamental but subject to statutory termination grounds)
- In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016) (heightened proof standard—clear and convincing—in termination cases)
- In re Gabriella D., 531 S.W.3d 662 (Tenn. 2017) (trial courts must consider all statutory best‑interest factors)
- In re Kaliyah S., 455 S.W.3d 533 (Tenn. 2014) (distinguishing burdens for grounds and best‑interest proof)
- In re Audrey S., 182 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (persistence of conditions focuses on the results of parental efforts)
- In re Heaven L.F., 311 S.W.3d 435 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (res judicata bars relitigation of prior dependency/adjudication findings)
- Kottmyer v. Maas, 436 F.3d 684 (6th Cir. 2006) (government has compelling interest in child protection)
- Mansell v. Bridgestone Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC, 417 S.W.3d 393 (Tenn. 2013) (due process requires opportunity to be heard at meaningful time and manner)