TN Parents Lose Custody of Kids After Methamphetamine Bust

Tennessee case summary on exposing children to dangerous drugs.

In 2015, the mother and father of three Tennessee children were arrested for drug offenses, including promotion and initiation of methamphetamine. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services was notified, and filed a petition for temporary legal custody of the children, alleging that they were dependent and neglected. The Department pointed to unsanitary living conditions, such as the home being infested with roaches and flies. Hair follicle samples taken from the children tested positive for meth and amphetamines. In 2015, the juvenile court found that the children were victims of severe abuse.

The Circuit Court allowed the evidence of the drug tests, and found that two of the children were exposed to meth through the environment in which the father allowed them to be present when vapors or smoke were present.

The father then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. He first argued that the trial court had erred in allowing the drug tests, since there was no testimony by a representative of the laboratory. He also argued that there was insufficient evidence to show severe child abuse.

The appeals court first turned to the evidentiary exhibit. It first noted that hearsay is evidence offered when the declarant is not present in court. In this case, the lab employee who made the test was not present to testify. For that reason, the hearsay is not admissible unless it qualified for an exception to the hearsay rule. The lower court had relied on the business records exception to the hearsay rule, noting that the testing records in this case were made by someone keeping it in the course of a regularly conducted business activity. The father, citing an earlier case, argued that this exception does not apply when the document is created with litigation in mind.

But the appeals court examined that case and determined that there was a critical difference. In the earlier case, the record was created solely for the purpose of establishing part of the state’s case. In this case, the Court of Appeals reasoned, one major part of obtaining the test results was to determine whether the children needed any medical treatment for exposure to dangerous substances.

The court also noted that even though the father did not have the opportunity to cross examine the technician who conducted the test, he had ample opportunity to question the results with other expert testimony. After weighing all of the relevant factors, the court concluded that admitting the test results was not error.

After concluding the evidentiary issue, the court looked at the evidence and agreed that it supported the lower court’s findings. It noted that the evidence did not preponderate against the findings of severe abuse.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s order.

No. E2015-01256-COA-R3-JV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 2, 2016).

See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Child Custody Laws in Tennessee.