TN Supreme Ct: Mom Tries to Euthanize Dad Doesn’t End Parental Rights

Tennessee law case summary on parental rights termination in family law from the Supreme Court.

In re: Taylor B.W.  – Tennessee parental rights termination

Husband and wife were divorced in March 2002, and entered into a marital dissolution agreement and a parenting plan for their two children.  In November of that same year, the wife purported to give the husband a flu vaccination.  However, the injection actually consisted of a chemical used to euthanize animals.  She subsequently pleaded guilty to attempted second degree murder, and was sentenced to twelve years, to be served at 30%.  At the time of the sentencing, the children were five and seven years old.

As might be expected, the wife’s imprisonment necessitated a change in the parenting plan, and the parties were able to agree to a new plan.  During the wife’s imprisonment, the children’s maternal grandmother was granted visitation one weekend per month to allow the children to visit their mother in prison.  The maternal grandmother was also granted an additional overnight visit per month, telephone privileges, and to have lunch at school with the children.  The wife was also permitted to phone the children at a babysitter’s home or at the grandmother’s home.

This parenting plan also called for a return to the original plan upon the wife’s release from prison, subject to supervision by the grandmother for at least six months, and called for mediation after that six month period.

In 2009, the husband remarried.  He and his new wife filed an action to terminate the wife’s parental rights and to obtain a stepparent adoption.

In 2010, the wife was released from prison, and the trial was held.  The trial court first found that the wife’s sentence of twelve years while the children were under eight years of age was a suitable ground for termination.  However, it next had to determine whether the termination was in the best interests of the children.  The trial court found that the mother had obtained a job, passed some examination and undergone some training (the nature of which was not stated in the record).

The trial court found that it was safe for the children to be in the wife’s home, and that she posed no danger to the children, despite the earlier attempt to euthanize their father.

The trial court also noted that the husband had been aware that the wife had attempted to murder him, but nevertheless entered into the amended parenting plan.

For these reasons, even though it considered the case to be a close one, the trial court denied the petition to terminate the wife’s parental rights.  The husband and his new wife appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, which reversed.  The wife then appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court first determined that the amended parenting plan to which the parties had agreed did not automatically preclude a modification under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.  It then went on to determine what was in the best interests of the children.  After considering the evidence, the Supreme Court agreed that the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court’s findings.  Since the husband had not established the best interests of the children by clear and convincing evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s findings. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court.

No. E2011-00352-SC-R11-PT (Tenn. Feb. 21, 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.