In Re: Yvonne R., E2016-02246-COA-R3-JV

In Sept. 2015, police welfare check found 11‑year‑old Yvonne with visible welts after Mother struck her with a jump rope; Mother was arrested for child abuse, domestic violence, and resisting arrest. DCS took emergency custody.
After a protective order, DCS arranged supervised visitation; Mother repeatedly tried to remove Yvonne, became disruptive, shouted, damaged property, and was arrested again for disorderly conduct. Mother later filed false police reports and ceased cooperating with DCS.
DCS obtained psychological and parenting assessments. Dr. Scott Herman evaluated Mother twice and diagnosed an adjustment disorder with anxiety; he identified parenting “red flags,” defensiveness, and risk of re‑acting to stress without treatment.
Mother denied mental illness, disputed witnesses, declined consistent treatment/medication, and behaved disruptively during proceedings; Father had temporary physical custody in Illinois with DCS retaining legal custody.
The circuit court (de novo review) found Yvonne dependent and neglected due to Mother’s mental illness, violence toward authority, and refusal to accept responsibility; Yvonne remained in DCS legal custody (placed with Father) and Mother received limited supervised visitation, with expanded visitation conditioned on treatment.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	DCS’s Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence shows the child is dependent and neglected because Mother’s mental incapacity makes her unfit to care for the child	DCS failed to prove lack of capacity; Dr. Herman’s diagnosis was temporary/minor; court improperly relied on Ten Broeck records (hearsay)	Mother’s behavior, evaluations, testimony, and Dr. Herman’s findings show mental incapacity and risk without treatment; hearsay reliance was harmless because other admissible evidence supported the finding	Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports dependency/neglect based on Mother’s mental condition, disruptive conduct, and refusal to accept responsibility; any reliance on Ten Broeck records was harmless error

In re Isaiah L., 340 S.W.3d 692 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (standard for de novo review and clear‑and‑convincing proof in dependency proceedings)
Cornelius v. Tenn. Dep’t of Children’s Servs., 314 S.W.3d 902 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (weight given to credibility findings on appeal)
In re Samaria S., 347 S.W.3d 188 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (parental right is strong but not absolute; dependency proceedings protect children when parents cannot care for them)
In re Adoption of Female Child, 896 S.W.2d 546 (Tenn. 1995) (recognized parental custodial rights)
Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573 (Tenn. 1993) (discussing constitutional protection of parent‑child relationship)