*1 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES,
HUMAN
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Tommy Lee RILEY Sue
Riley, Defendants-Appellants. Tennessee, Appeals
Court of
Western Section Jackson. 5,
Dec.
Application Appeal for Permission to 4, 1985.
Denied March
165 (B) There is little likelihood that these early any conditions will remedied at be can date so that the child be returned to future; parent in the near and (C) legal parent of the The continuation relationship greatly and child diminishes early integration the child’s chances permanent into a home. stable n [5] n [*] [*] [*] n Wilson, Dyersburg, Dale for de- Leland Thus, parental to terminate order fendants-appellants. rights (1) subparagraph under of Section 37-246(d), the court must find five ele Gen., Atty. Stamey, Dianne Asst. Nash- (1) ments: must The termination ville, plaintiff-appellee. § 37-246(d); best interest children. of the (2) The children must been removed CRAWFORD, Judge. parent custody from the of the the court (herein- Tommy Peggy Lee and Sue § 37-246(d)(l); (3) year. for at least one Rileys) appeal judgment from the after The conditions led to the which removal County the Circuit Court of Obion which § (4) 37-246(d)(l)(A); must still exist. parental rights terminated their to their There must chance that be little these con Lee, minor April two born ditions so will be remedied that the children 26,1974 Charles, 1,1977. January born parent early can be to the at an returned Department The Tennessee of Human Ser- § 246(d)(1)(B); (5) date. The contin 37— (hereinafter TDHS) vices initiated this ac- parent-child relationship uation of the by petition tion filed in Juvenile Court greatly opportuni diminish the children’s County of Obion which entered an order early integration ties for into stable and terminating parental Rileys’ rights. § 246(d)(1)(C). permanent home. Each 37— appeal On to the Circuit Court the case was requirement necessary for a termination novo, resulting heard de judgment in a subparagraph under this must be found terminating parental rights of the Ri- evidence. Santosky convincing clear leys. Kramer, 745, 102 455 U.S. S.Ct. Riley’s parental (1982). judgment The court The terminated L.Ed.2d 599 of the pursuant rights findings to Tenn.Code Ann. 37- trial court recited that of that 246(d)(1) (1977), applicable convincing statute of court were based on clear and termination1, provided pertinent specifically which evidence found the exist part: ence of the five elements set out above.
[*] [*] [*] [*] [*] [*] Rileys present following issues for review: (d) hearing After evidence on a termina- 1. Whether TDHS followed the foster petition, tion the court terminate procedures? care review parental if it finds on the basis of arrangements 2. Whether the visitation convincing clear and evidence termi- achieving goal were conducive to nation is in the best child’s interest and family? reuniting the following ... conditions exist: 3. Whether TDHS rehabilita- (1) The child from has been removed tive services to after the custody parent by the court for at removal of their children. (1) year least one and the court finds that: specific issues, these addressing Prior to (A)The led to we turn to an conditions which the re- examination record. persist: judicial moval still We shall outline the adminis- 37-l-147(d) spects (1984). This statute has been re- and is now T.C.A. amended several procedures Significantly, trative followed and summarize and a half a bottle of Coke. each witness’ since this evidence improved, as to whether conditions background provides understanding question to following record reflects the disposition of our this case. response of Mrs. Carlisle: The record Rileys’ indicates that the two Q. you any improvements noticed Have ages minor then 5 and were living enough conditions *3 removed from their in natural children could ? be returned ... June, 27, 1979, July 1979. On the Obion A. No sir. County Juvenile Court found the children During testimony, Mrs. she Carlisle’s “dependent neglected.” and Pursuant to programs outlined the TDHS had statute, TDHS filed a Foster Care Plan Rileys from 1977 until the children’s 28,1979, August with the court on in 1979. removal She noted that a state approved by was the court on March employed housekeeper weekly made 6, had Subsequent 1980. approved Rileys’ counseling, to the home for timely filed and and a visits appointed litem in placed day ad was the children the children had in been September, These actions occurred care, 1981. department and that the had worked permanently an order to terminate before provide with all available Rileys’ rights was filed on December government subsidies. 1982. programs pro- with the above Contrasted placed The children were with seven dif- Rileys prior to their children’s vided ferent foster families before went to removal, reported Mrs. Carlisle that since August, live Blakeman’s home state, had the children become wards of the approved adoption That home has been provide counseling; had continued to should the who have contin- however, she admitted on cross examina- Blakemans, ued to live with the be avail- limited to the tion that this service was able. Rileys times she could catch the at home. trial, At the Circuit Court the first wit- addition, reported she that TDHS had who, as a TDHS ness was Ruth Carlisle arranged provided transportation visits and caseworker, Rileys worked with in order for the to see their children. representa- since 1977. She was the TDHS cross-examination, On Mrs. Carlisle conced- proceedings in when it initiated these tive numerous ed that Mrs. had made June, 1979. phone inquiring her children calls about living to the Mrs. Carlisle testified condi- requesting The caseworker tes- and visits. lived at the time tions which arranged tified that visits were whenever the children were removed. She described possible. junkyard built from the house witness, psychologist, testi- The second parts sparsely furnished. testified She and found fied that he had tested dirty that it was littered with clothes IQ individually adminis- his to be 72 on an food, linens, dirty filth and waste bed According psychologist’s to the tered test. only running pots pans. water Riley’s IQ range testimony, further at the the house was cold water available possi- him tó do unskilled work enabled kitchen sink. training, perform lower bly, with level Later, Mrs. the home Carlisle described tasks. skilled currently in which Mr. and Mrs. live. witness, psychologist, another The next rooms, substantially more built four It is a IQ given Mrs. testified that she had enough large it has cracks These tests had determined that tests. through one to see to the outside. enable IQ psy- which in the running is still no water. Mrs. Car- There equivolent age chologist’s opinion was trip only food testified that on one lisle year old. The continued: bag potatoes of a 7 she saw the house was a Well, Q. you identify capabil- Can some of the A. one of the subtests is called comprehension, person age verbal and it meas- ities a with this would judgment logical ures social rea- have? soning, and she scored in the moder- Well, they A. would be to dress able So, range on that ate subtest. themselves, themselves, feed do sim- logical reasoning say would that her ple year household chores. A seven judgment impaired, would be old, know, you might be able to cook also. foods, simple probably witness, it, The fourth trial a cook for the recipe couldn’t read a to follow day know, care center the children attended you They to the “t”. could do Rileys’ before were taken from the self-help the basic skills. home, “poorly stated that the children were limitations; Q. What about are there Following dressed” and not clean. certain limitations attributable testimony, Peggy day Lee’s care teacher moderate mental retardation? *4 Peggy unkept. testified that Lee “was well, Usually, usually, nearly A. but She was not clean.” time, people all the these function on homemaker, Spurgeon, The TDHS Mrs. very They concrete level. are able in her recounted her contacts things to deal with concrete such as Rileys. asked When what she had chores, I simple said but when hoped accomplish weekly to on her visits to making judgments comes to such Riley home from 1977 until she legal, moral, and those kinds of help Riley stated that she wanted to Mrs. things, they would not be able to skills, homemaking learn to take the chil- think abstractly enough to do these appointments, dren for and to be a things. sorts of They really would friend. She stated: children were “[t]he supervision caring need in for them- very outgoing, smiling, they happy, but selves. dirty. were Food was not—There was bo- Q. daily running Even of a house- logna, soup things of that No nature. hold? really prepared given well meals were IA. would not want to leave a seven really them. The dirt was the worst ... year old child in a household was not fit for humans to live [The house] Basically, themselves. that’s what Spurgeon in.” Mrs. stated further that all you can sort of relate it to. help of her efforts to Mrs. Q. guess I question the answer of this difficulty vain because she had remember- you just is obvious from what stat- ing previous she had learned on the what ed, but perform would she be able to Spurgeon Mrs. visit. testified as to the parenting supervi- duties of following specific instances: she had seen general sion and the chil- care of manure; playing Charles chicken she dren? Riley’s mother, had observed Mr. who lived adjacent Well, family, to her son and his drunk my really A. test didn’t test rage morning; and in a one she had been say but I would person that a that is told Mrs. had on functioning level, said, at this as I fire, one occasion set their bed on that he supervision would need themselves portion stamp had used a of their food lives, taking daily care of their beer, money buy finally that her would, therefore, think that it had forced her to have husband’s brother extremely would be for difficult sexually sex him and had molested them to care for children and care Peggy Lee. adequately. for them Q. examination, judgment her Spurgeon Would the same as cross Mrs. On old, year quit working ap-
that of a seven or does noted that she for TDHS your proximately prior posi- test measure that? six months to her seasonal, tion cut from the budget jobs state most of which were there replacement was no for her dur- majority unsupervised. of which were period. this six month She stated that house, regard present to his With he stated she believed that Mrs. loved her chil- leak, that the roof does not that the house had, dren Spurgeon on one adequately by wood-burning is heated occasion, observed bruises on Lee’s stove, and that the house is for elec- wired body that were the result of Mrs. tricity. He stated that his wife cooks lunch having whipped her. daily. and dinner for him He added that they bring have to water from his mother- Following testimony, the homemaker’s approximately in-law’s home which is proposed mother, adoptive Mrs. Blake- yards away, that he but has water-line man, testified. Mrs. Blakeman stated that questioned connections available. When she and her husband have been married 13 improved housing, about his efforts to find years, children, have no natural nothing he stated that TDHS had done approved adop- have been problem. him regard with his With tion. further She testified that since the his visitations with the August, arrived their home in difficulty arranging stated that he had had 1982, she and her had husband received transportation and a suitable time to compensation, financial addition, see his children. he testified salary for the children from her as an counseling that he had received no and no inventory clerk at a local retail store and help from TDHS since his children had profits. her husband’s farm When asked regard been removed. He testified that he and his about her intentions with to the *5 children, replied currently foodstamps receive she that she loved the wife no adopt security payments supplement children and wished to them. Her no social husband, Blakeman, per salary. Mr. later substantiat- his week He admitted hav- $60 testimony. monetary ed this his made contributions to support children’s since had been re- Following testimony, the Blakeman’s the moved from his home. He does not use Riley children’s teacher testified that alcohol, and he loves his children and wants “significant progress— had made Charles them back. years during year ... two worth” the last “Peggy and that started more [had] The defense’s second witness was Mrs. outgoing opening up doing better Riley. testified she had seen She that not school, pointed also.” The teacher also long time, her children in a but admitted Charles, special out that as a education having seen Mrs. Carlisle and the children’s student, Lee, hyperactive as a guardian recently. ad litem She said child, needed individualized assistance and trying she her children and real loves “[is] highly structured environment. back,” get promised hard to them to do if returned her better the children were witness, Watt, The next Hazel the Car- care. worker, having County reported roll TDHS the since worked with skills, regard homemaking With to her asked their home When whether current Mrs. stated that she could and does adoption, replied would be suitable for she regular cook and clean on a basis and that stable, best, that it was one of the was babysits she with her brother’s children adjusted that the children seemed to have frequently during day. testified She well while there. She stated that she felt it present has neither an house would be in the children’s best interest to outhouse, outdoor bathroom nor an adopted. go junkyard.” On cross-ex- said “we above, Riley responded Mrs. that she amination proof To the outlined of her following did not know the date birth Rileys offered the witnesses: First, testify. she could not tell which letter came after was called to He farming alphabet. “N” stated that he worked at various or “W” Beasley, Riley’s brother, tion, James Mrs. questioned, indi- was when the third defense sup- witness called. He stay cated that wished to ported statement that she had report Blakemans. Moss’ concludes kept his three children from 5:30 a.m. until with the observation “that the conditions p.m. every day 3:30 year one years lead to removal over three which [sic] job she did that well. He stated further ago persists still and there seems little that Mr. had improve- made home likelihood that will be remedied ments on the current house in which the report specifically His near future.” cites Rileys examination, live. On cross he ad- conditions, dangerous physical par- mitted that his sister “mental abilities, par- ents’ limited mental and the problems.” remedy problem ents’ lack of efforts to addition to the summarized areas as the bases for his conclusion. above, the record also includes two Although Rileys presented prepared by children’s keep three issues for review we ad litem Mr. Bruce Moss. Mr. Moss’ first type mind that all issues in a case of prepared subsequent this to his Feb- ruary premised 1982 visit to the on the foundation issue of home. At the time he evaluated the house with its “what is best interest of the child.” cracks,” “gaping “numerous broken win- With this observation we turn to an exami general dows” and filth to be “most defi- Rileys nation of the issues the raise nitely not suited for or conducive to the through simplicity, their counsel. For we proper rearing less, anyone, much minor together: consider issues one and three children.” He went further and noted that provided Whether TDHS the rehabilita neighborhood was cluttered with aban- tive services to after their garbage. doned vehicles and parents, Both children were removed and whether he being “unkept whom described as and in proper followed foster care cleansing,” need of suffered from mental plan procedures. review likely infirmities which to worsen Tenn.Code Ann. 37-2462 improve. Finally, or to he concluded that guidance ruling for the court in whether way he saw no that the could ever *6 termination is in the best chil- interests of He, therefore, care for their children. rec- dren and whether there is a chance for an ommended that the children’s best interest early remedy to the conditions that led to by terminating be served Riley’s paren- foster care: rights. tal (e) determining whether there is likeli- Mr. Moss’ second included a find- hood that the child can be returned to the Rileys while the had moved since parent in the near future and whether visit, his last very their house “of was parental rights termination of Dirt, similar conditions.” clutter and flies child, best interests of the the court shall throughout were observed the house and consider, to, but is not limited the follow- metal, glass and other objects discarded ing: yard. only The food in the potatoes. (1) kitchen had been a sack of parent There an Whether the has made such running circumstances, was no water. Moss observed adjustment of conduct or during this visit Mrs. could not conditions as to make it in the child’s simplest remember the bit of information— best interests to return home the fore- she did not remember him or his future; visit 18 seeable months earlier. (2) parent has failed to ef- Whether lasting adjustment
The a after reason- ad litem also fect visited proposed adoptive by agencies home able efforts available social lasting in every way. found favorable In addi- for such duration of time that 37-l-147(e) (1984). section is 2. This now
adjustment board, reasonably appear does not been such a its “assessment and § possible; advisory.” T.C.A. 37-1505 (Supp.1979). (3) Whether brutality, there is or abuse neglect toward other children in the fa- Riley’s The second weakness in the mily; argument dealing with TDHS’s failure to (4) comply statutory requirements with the Whether there is such use of alcohol lies in their assertion that the available or controlled substances as render agency (in TDHS) social this instance did parent consistently unable to care for not make reasonable efforts to assist child; parents in an effort to rehabilitate the fa (5) parent paid Whether the has a rea- mily unit. See Tenn.Code Ann. 37- portion physical sonable of substitute 246(e)(2)(Supp.1979). We do not take this care financially and maintenance when strictly to mean that a failure so; able to do comply plan with the foster care statute (6) parent Whether the has maintained precludes finding of “reasonable efforts” regular visitation or other contact with meaning parental rights within the designed imple- the child which was termination statute. in plan mented to reunite the child with Riley’s The third issue is whether parent. arrangements the visitation were conducive major thrust of the ar achieving goal reuniting the fami gument is that the failure of TDHS to ly. They allege that did not fulfill comply requirements governing obligation regard maintaining its with foster care set out in Tenn.Code Ann. program visitation for them to visit their § 37-1502, prevent 1503 and 15053 should regard children. With to the sixth statu finding tory requirement, the court’s made rea the courts shall that TDHS consider parent regu has maintained “whether sonable efforts to rehabilitate the lar the children. 37- visitation with Riley’s argument unit. The weakness in 246(e)(6) Admittedly, Riley inquired First, two-fold. as to the actual foster care numerous times the children and about vis plans required by the statute there is nei iting them. Difficulties because arose allegation proof ther plans nor that these telephone, had no seldom had were not executed. The do contend transportation, and the children were plans timely prepared. that the were not homes, many of which were not Obion original plan pre noteWe Testimony County. indicates TDHS did its pared thirty days within after the court part arranging up reasonable visitation dependent neglected found the children began until the time that the state termina thirty days and was ratified within there parental rights proceedings. tion of progress reports after. While the were not this case was tried the court Since requiring within the letter of the law sitting jury, the case without a we review *7 they every be made six months for the first de novo upon presump- the record with year, report the first was filed within four findings correctness of the of fact tion of approval plan months of the of court’s the by the trial court. Unless the evidence and the second and one- seven against findings, preponderates the we half months later. affirm, absent error of law. T.R.A.P. 13(d). allege also 37- requires independent advisory 1505 an the At the conclusion of the evidence plan. of the board review foster care We court, statute, required by filed trial as find do not the absence of this review to be findings of fact. From our exami- written fatal. At the time children the were find that the nation of the record we do not custody, against preponderates state’s there was review the trial evidence findings that made County, had there court’s written TDHS board Obion and even 37-2-403, (1984) respectively. and 3. These sections are now 37-2-404 37-2-406 they placed pursuant lived at the time were reasonable rehabilitative efforts adequate custody Department of Human Ser plan, foster care of the to an compared obligation they that if helping par- its were such were vices fulfilled arrange in Erskine transportation, ents visitation and with the conditions described Road,,1 condi that the best of the children Caldwell’s interest Caldwell’sTobacco Avenue, par- New require termination of their natural like Fifth tions would seem rights. York, cir Rileys’ ents’ comparison Further, I the Ri find that cumstances. out, did, point judge We as the trial trial, at the time of leys’ circumstances proceedings had notice of all at best. improved, were dismal represented by either counsel or had were admissions, I must still with these Even explained matters them so that dissent. capable understood as well as were of understanding. The children also had a understanding requires of my An dissent during ad litem the time the ter- which that we examine statutes taking proceedings place. mination custody in to ex- acquired addition Ri- amining statute under which We are unmindful trauma leys’ parental rights were terminat- forever removing children from their involved acquired custody because ed. TDHS terminating parents natural and in those “dependent found children were to be parents’ rights. Neither do we intend to meaning of neglected” within the placed children say that should be filed, is evident laws. From adoptive parents simply and/or be- foster concerned, insofar as is parents provide cause those can more mate- ne- dependent as qualified for possessions opportunities rial them § 37-l-102(10)(B) parents. glected T.C.A. than can natural We base under holding in upon (Supp.1984), Riley, by this case what reason our we because Mrs. in the record that indicates that for incapacity,” found unfit to care of “mental safety physical psychological Riley, matura- Mr. properly the children. As to tion the best interest of Lee and inability his it would that because of seem by up- will served Charles be best financially provide his subsec- holding the trial court’s decision appli- (10)(G) statute tion would have of their natural should cation. permanently terminated. im- reading A of this entire record fair Accordingly, judgment of the trial cause of pels conclusion that the one to the affirmed, is costs are court assessed and now have existed the conditions which TDHS, against and the case is remanded incapacity of Mrs. exist the mental proceedings necessary. for further as Riley, try Mr. as hard inability and the of adequate in- procure might, as he an TOMLIN, J., concurs. Riley moderately retarded come. Mrs. P.J., having mentali- NEARN, W.S., tested as dissents. and has been is, year old. Mr. at ty of a seven NEARN, Judge, Presiding Western Sec- best, psychologist case. The borderline tion, dissenting. I.Q. his Riley measured who examined opinion respectfully I from the dissent finding 72; further testified that he my brothers. subject for qualified the less than 70 agree part for the most with the facts mentally designation of retarded majority forth in the and conclusions set margin cent of error per a 3 there was disposition opinion. majority’s It is the Therefore, given Riley. rating *8 appeal pri- on am the issue with which I.Q. on the were if the in Mr. error disagreement. marily in to high side, Riley would be considered that, topOn of mentally retarded. a that be The record without doubt shows limited formal education. It in has a the the conditions which Co., Mass., 1970). Caldwell, Bentley (Cambridge, Pub. Tobacco Road 1. Erskine 172 grade. ended the prived altogether seventh Because of it custody; all of is an but this,
of
Mr. Riley has
to
thing
been able
obtain
are
say
they
different
to
that
no
only menial employment, seasonal in
longer
put,
my opin-
na-
parents. Simply
it is
ture. The
willing
record shows that he is a
state, operating through
ion that
the
before
trying
worker and is
to make an
Court, may
honest
say
parents
a
you
to
that
living. On occasions he has worked for
your
again,
never
you may
see
child
that
than
wage
less
try
minimum
in order to
to
your
again,
never touch and embrace
child
better his family’s living conditions.
you may
say
that
your
never hear
child
short,
playing
he is
the cards life has dealt
“Mommy”
again,
or “Daddy”
the
before
him, the
play
best he knows how to
them.
say
that,
parent
State
all
can
the
must have
just
He
was not dealt much of a hand.
something
willfully
wrong.
done
nothing
There is
in this record to indicate
right
The state has the
to terminate
any
existing
that
of the
are
conditions
the
only
one’s
wrong
life
when some heinous
any
neglect
result of
willful act or willful
true,
has
willfully
been
done.
If that be
of
Riley.
either Mr. or Mrs.
The record
power
then under which constitutional
does show without doubt that both are
granted
the
people does the
have
state
doing
pathetic
prop-
best to furnish a
right,
finding
without a
of willful
is,
er home for the children.
as it
Sad
it wrongdoing,
pa-
to
terminate forever
be
very
admitted that their
best is
relationship,
rental
cases is
which most
simply
enough
proper
not
for the
well be-
precious
more
than life itself? I believe
of
children. The record further
certainly
none exists.
It
cannot
done
be
parents
that both
shows
love their children
guise
under the
of the
interests of the
best
to
them
want
with them
to be
so,
child.
If that
every
were
then
child
family.
simply
a
One
read this
cannot
living
poverty
subject
to
dire
would be
emotionally
record and
be
moved.
not
being
away
poor parents
taken
from
so
many phone
There
calls
adopted by
could
afflu-
be
more
wanting
mother
to visit the
but
parents.
equally caring
ent and
Our law
of
unable to do so because
lack of
clearly provides for
element willful-
of
transportation and the
efforts
continued
of
if
ness
cases. Even
a
abandonment
to
transportation
the father
obtain
and his
shown, if
technical abandonment
is
inability to do so. At the time of trial he
is
abandonment
not willful because of
vehicle,
making payments
on
1970
a
incarceration, there
circumstance such as
possession
but was unable to obtain
until
can
37-
be no abandonment. See T.C.A.
paid
However,
completely
he
for
it.
no
1-102(1)
said,
(Supp.1984). As has been
Court,
involved,
pathos
matter the
a
inso-
disgrace
poverty
honest
is no
and is not a
concerned,
custody
far as
must look to
justifiable cause for the loss of fundamen-
of
the best
interests
the children. This
rights
personal
tal
as
“freedom of
such
brings
disagreement
me my
choice in matters of
life.”
San-
See
majority
presented by
over the issue
745,
Kramer, (1982)
753,
455
tosky v.
U.S.
case.
1388, 1394,
102
L.Ed.2d 599. Nei-
S.Ct.
71
If mental
incompetence.
ther is mental
para-
The best
is the
interest
child
ordinarily
incompetent commits
act that
an
custody.
mount
issue in the matter of
crime, the
does
would be considered a
law
Walker, (1983 Tenn.App.W.S.)
Walker
course, such a
it as such. Of
consider
11,
If
simply
this
656 S.W.2d
liberty
of
person may
deprived
be
when
matter,
dissent,
custody
there would
others,
person
danger
himself or
is a
require
I believe
facts
so,
deprivation never
liberty
even
now, custody
How-
remain with the state.
permanent.
law to be
matter;
considered
ever,
custody
this is not
is a
long
liberty
only
deprivation
exists
so
paren-
of all
matter
final termination
condition exists. See Jones v.
mental
Riley.
As noted
tal
Mr. and
States,
354,
(1983) 463
(1961 M.S.)
U.S.
parte
United
Wolfenden,
Ex
3053,
law
Tenn.App. 433,
S.Ct.
which led to removal ... still conditions persistent such be [sic]” § 37- of a termination order. T.C.A.
basis (1984). l-147(d)(l)(A) statutory provi- That CHAILLE, Warren Dorris Warren Stew sion, case, applied to the facts of this art, Guthrie, Elizabeth Warren David L. parental rights may for- means that the Warren, Jr., Henslee, and Ella Warren ever terminated because of the mental Plaintiffs/Appellees, deficiency parents monetary showing any act of deleterious willful WARREN, Sr., Warren, Max H. Max H. parents. parents If these been Jr., Warren, Edward R. John L. War suffered normal and then had ren, Patty Anderson, Henslee Eloise damage in an accident brain automobile Corwin, Henslee Martha Warren to care for Dowl and were unable ing, Warren, Guy Defendants, right terminate M. would the state have rights injuries? I parental because of the yes, not to custody, think not. To take but Vallie Dee Warren Johnson and terminate forever. The fact Collier, Christine Warren parents happen to have been born these Defendants/Appellants, “injuries” is no reason for them with their right to see and know their to lose their Bank, Federal Land Intervenor. children. Appeals Tennessee, Court of involved I would not hold statutes Middle Section at Nashville. unconstitutional, facially I would hold but represents an unconstitution- that this case 15, Jan. 1985. application al of the laws. Rehearing Granted Feb. 1985. closing, I cannot note that Application for Permission Appeal the record reveals that the children are by Supreme Denied Court couple the care of a who seem now under April caring truly They to love the children. any support for them without financial This this dis-
from the state. fact makes for me to write.
sent even more difficult