Criterion for Terminating Parental Rights in Tennessee Law

Tennessee law case summary on terminating parental rights in Tennessee divorce.

IN THE MATTER OF JUSTICE A. F. – Tennessee law on termination of parental rights

This case involves the termination of parental rights.  T.L.A., the mother, and J.E.F., the father, had two children together, the child in question, who was less than two years old at the time of the initial trial, and another baby, who was three months old when she was murdered by the father.

The mother had four older children with another man.  The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (DCS) twice removed the four older children from the mother’s custody following a report that the father had sexually abused the oldest daughter and the father’s continued contact with those children, despite court prohibitions.   The child was born in February 2007.  In May 2008, the baby was born.

The mother left the child and the baby with the father, at his request, when she left for work in August 2008, rather than leaving them with their regular caregiver.  The baby was found dead in the evening and the father was found guilty of second degree murder and sentenced to 25 years in prison.

Following a petition filed by the DCS, the juvenile court declared the child dependent and neglected.  The court ruled that she was a victim of severe abuse as a result of the father’s severe abuse against her sister and her mother’s failure to protect the child from this abuse.  The court also commented that the history of abuse and neglect in the family shows the mother has a pattern of poor decision-making and willfully failed to protect her children.   The DCS then filed a petition with the Chancery court, asking to terminate the mother’s and father’s parental rights as to the child, using the finding of severe abuse as grounds.

The trial court

Since grounds (severe abuse) were already established by the juvenile court’s order, the testimony in the trial court focused on the best interests of the child.  The DCS case manager, Letina Pruitt (Pruitt), testified that the mother had undergone some counseling, attended domestic violence classes, maintained a visitation schedule with the child and always had employment.  Despite this, Pruitt raised several concerns, including the fact that the mother had moved five or six times since the child was taken away from her, raising  concerns about her stability and her lack of remorse and her refusal to take responsibility for her part in the death of the baby.  Pruitt also testified that the child was doing well in her new foster home, her behavior had improved and the foster-mother wanted to adopt her.  In contrast, when she saw the mother, the child regressed and became angry.  Pruitt believed that returning the child to the mother was not in her best interest.  The foster mother’s testimony matched much of what Pruitt stated.

Dr. Catherine Collins (Collins), a clinical psychologist, testified about the mother and the child.  She said the child was withdrawn, had little emotional expression, and was isolated and resistant to contact.  Collins testified that the mother  was detached from her children, showed no enjoyment from interacting with them, and spoke harshly and in a commanding tone.   The relationship between the mother and the child was particularly poor.

Collins testified that the mother was unlikely to provide a safe, stable and nurturing environment for the child.  The mother herself was a victim of sexual and domestic abuse and had a history of bad and abusive relationships.  The mother continued her relationship with the father despite warnings and even after he was imprisoned.  She took little responsibility for her own actions and showed no remorse for the baby’s death.  The mother also failed to show up for three individual therapy appointments.

The mother, in her testimony, said she had completed all of the goals of the DCS program, including attending parenting classes, attending domestic violence and grief counseling, providing a stable home, holding down a job and regularly visiting Justice.   She admitted that her children were taken from her, but that the court order prohibiting contact with the father only referred to the oldest daughter.  She admitted to having relations with the father during this no-contact period.   She also admitted to at least one incident of domestic violence with the father but said there was no indication of abuse since he had always taken care of the child before the baby was born.  She also saw nothing wrong with leaving him with the children since there was no court order against it.  She said she had changed, could better judge people and knew how to take care of her children better.  As proof, she mentioned her five month old baby.

The trial court found that there was “clear and convincing evidence” that the child’s best interest required that the mother’s parental rights be terminated.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals

The court of appeals acknowledged that a biological parent’s right to the care and custody of her child is one of the oldest rights protected by both federal and state constitutions, but that this right is not absolute.  It exists so long as the parent has not given up the right or “engaged in conduct requiring its limitation or termination.”   The state raised the grounds of severe abuse as a reason for terminating the mother’s parental right and the mother did not appeal the grounds.  The question raised was the best interest of the child.

While the Tennessee code provides a number of factors a court may use to determine the best interests of the child (did the parent make adjustments in conduct, is there a meaningful relationship between the parent and the child), this list is not closed and the court may weigh certain factors more than others.   The Appeals court held that the testimony of the two witnesses and the mother’s own testimony showed she failed to make the necessary changes to make her home safe for the child.  While she did complete some of the programs required of her, her behavior and actions showed she had not made the necessary adjustments.    The Appeals court also found that not only was there no meaningful relationship between the mother and the child but that the relationship was detrimental to the child’s well-being.  For these reasons, the Appeals court upheld the decision of the lower court and terminated the mother’s parental rights as to the child.

No. W2011-02520-COA-R3-PT (Tenn. Ct. App. Sep. 24, 2012).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

The Miles Mason Family Law Group handles Tennessee divorce, child support, alimony, child custody, and parent relocation.  Download our free e-Book,Your First Steps: 7 Steps Planning Your Tennessee Divorce.  A Memphis divorce lawyer from the Miles Mason Family Law Group can help.  To schedule your confidential consultation, call us today at (901) 683-1850.