Dad’s Parental Rights Can’t Be Terminated Despite Alleged Abandonment

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

In re: William T.H. – Tennessee divorce stepparent adoption and parent’s rights termination

The child in this termination of parental rights case was born in 2005 when the parents were in high school.  Both the mother and father continued to live with their parents after the child was born.  In 2006, the father started college, but came home on weekends to see the child.  He contributed to expenses, but there was no formal support arrangement.

In 2007, the father withdrew from college and came home to spend more time with the child.  The child occasionally stayed at the father’s house for the night.  The mother was in charge of the child’s schedule, and the mother decided when the father could visit.

The parents never sought court intervention, but in 2007, the child was receiving medical coverage through TennCare, and the state obtained an order requiring the father to provide the child with medical insurance.  However, the court did not decide any child support or visitation rights.

Starting in 2009, the mother began denying the father visitation rights.  She began dating the stepfather at this time, and the two were married in 2011.  About a month later, they filed a petition for adoption and for termination of the father’s parental rights on the ground of abandonment.  In 2013, the trial court, Sumner County, Tennessee, granted the adoption and terminated the father’s parental rights.  The trial court held that the father had abandoned the child by willfully failing to pay child support or visit the child for the four months prior to the petition.  The father then brought the case to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The father argued that any abandonment was not willful, and also that the termination was not in the best interests of the child.  The Court of Appeals elected to bypass the willfulness argument, since the case could be resolved by looking at the best interests of the child.

The appeals court first noted that the focus was on what was best for the child, rather than what is best for either parent.  In this case, the trial court had focused on the fact that the child would be best off living in the stepfather’s home.  But the appeals court noted that this factor was of limited relevance, since the father was not taking any steps to remove the child from that home.

The court noted that there was no evidence that the father’s home was unsafe or that the father’s lifestyle posed any danger for the child.  The court cited an earlier case in noting that a father’s rights could not be forfeited by finding another man who would be a more ideal father.  In particular, the court noted that there was no evidence that having the father involved in the child’s life, in addition to the stepfather, posed any risk to the child.

Based upon all of the evidence, the court held that the stepfather had not met his heavy burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the father’s rights was appropriate.  For that reason, it vacated the lower court’s order and remanded the case to set a reasonable parenting schedule for the father.

No. M2013-00448-COA-R3-PT (Tenn.Ct. App. Feb 18, 2014).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.