Tennessee Father and Prisoner Contests Waiver of Parental Rights

Tennessee law case summary on adoption and termination of parental rights in family law from the Court of Appeals.

In re Jordan T.J. – Termination of Parental Rights of Incarcerated Father

Father was incarcerated at Riverbend Maximum Security Prison and was indigent.  He appealed the termination of his parental rights claiming that he was denied due process because he was not informed of his rights as required under the Tennessee Code.  He did not sign a waiver of his rights, and he was not provided a court-appointed attorney.  Father, who did not file a responsive pleading to the petition, contended, among other things, that the trial court failed to comply with the Tennessee Code Annotated, which mandates that he be informed that he had the right to participate and contest the allegations and, if he wished to contest the petition, that a court-appointed attorney would be provided to assist him.  In addition to a lack of a signed waiver by the father, the record did not reflect that the juvenile court made the requisite determination that he was informed of his rights and, after being informed, voluntarily waived his right to a court-appointed attorney to assist in contesting the petition, or that, if he did not participate after being informed of his rights, the court could proceed with the action without his participation as set forth in the Tennessee Code.

The trial court’s grounds for the termination of parental rights as to father included abandonment by an incarcerated parent pursuant to state statute and the existence of a 10-year sentence; the failure to establish parentage; and persistence of conditions pursuant to the applicable sections of the Tennessee Code.  The Petition also alleged that termination of father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child.

Orders were entered by the Juvenile Court of Dickson County in January 2011 appointing an attorney to represent mother and appointing an attorney as the guardian ad litem for the minor child.  There was no attorney appointed to represent father.  An order was entered by the trial court setting the trial date; however, prior to that order, there was no communication between the trial court or its staff, counsel for petitioners, or the guardian ad litem, and father.  Subsequently, Petitioners’ counsel filed a copy of her letter to father that stated that he had not filed a responsive pleading to the Petition and inquiring whether he intended to attend the hearing or forfeit his rights to a hearing.

A court reporter was not present at trial. Nevertheless, the record reflected father did not attend or participate at trial.  At the conclusion of the trial, the judge ruled from the bench terminating the parental rights of father.  A court order then terminated father’s parental rights on the grounds mentioned above, as well as finding that it was in the best interest of the minor child.

The record before the appellate court clearly established that the procedural requirements of the Tennessee Code Annotated were not followed.  None of the orders, or the letter, met the requirement of the state statutes because they did not affirmatively show to the trial court that father received actual notice of any of the requirements.  Moreover, none of them advised father, that if he wished to contest the allegations, that he would be given a court-appointed attorney and would have the right to obtain and present testimony by means of depositions or interrogatories as provided by the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Tennessee Court of Appeals said that it was reversible error for a trial court to proceed with a termination of parental rights trial in the absence of an incarcerated parent when the procedural requirements were not followed.  Due to the failure to comply with the Tennessee Code, the trial court erred by proceeding with the termination proceedings against father.  Therefore, the court of appeals said that it had no option but to vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings.

No. M2011-01345-COA-R3-PT, 2013 WL 357584 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2013).

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.