### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Brie fs Jun e 23, 200 5 I N RE 

### M.W.M., W.W.M., S.M.M., & A.M.M. Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Law renceCounty No. 11033-02 JimT. Hamilton, Judge

No. M2005- 00053-COA-R 3-P T - F iled Augu st 1, 2005

This a ppeal involves an imprisoned mother’s eff orts to retain he r par ental rig hts with reg ard to four of her eig ht childr en . T h e T ennessee De partment of Children’ s Services f iled a petition in the Chance ry Court for L awr enceCounty seeking to te rminate the mother’s pare ntal rig hts with reg ard to four of h e r c h il d r e n r e s id in g in T e n n e s s e e . F o ll o w in g a b e n c h trial, th e c o u rt te r mi n a te dthe mother’s pa

renta l rig hts to the three older children ba sed on abandonment under Te nn. Code Ann. §§ 36 -1 -1 13 (g )( 1) and36 -1 -1 02 (1 )( A) (i v) (S up p. 20 04 ) andte rm inate d h e r rig hts to the y ou ng e st child based on Te nn. C o d e An n . § 36-1-113( g )(6) . On this appea l, the mother asse rts that the evidenc e does not support the trial court’s conclusions that she a bandoned the three older c hildren a n dth a t th e in te r e s ts o f

a ll f o u r c h il d r e n w o u ld b e b e s t se r v e d b y te r mi n a ti n g h e r p ar e n tal rig h ts
. We have de termined that the record contains clea r and convincing evidenc e that the mother a bandoned the threeolder c hildren and that terminat i n g t h e mother’ s pare ntal rig hts is in t he best intere sts of all four of the childre n involved in this case. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Affi rm ed W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S

. , d el i v ered the opinion of the court, in which P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J ., joined. W I L L I AM B. C A IN , J ., filed a c oncurring opinion. Sta nle y K. Pie rc ho ski, L a wr e nc e bu rg , T e nn e sse e , f or theapp e llant, R.M

. Paul G

. Summers, A ttorney Gene ral and Reporter , and J uan G. Villaseñor, Assistant At t o rn ey Ge ne ral, f or theapp e lle e , St a te of

Te nn e sse e De pa

rtme nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s. OP IN ION I. W.M. was serving in the Unit ed S tates Na vy when he beg an dating R.M. R.M. was a native of Ve ne zue la

wh o, by thetim e sh e me t W.M. , ha d a lr e a dy be e n ma rrie d tw ic e a nd ha d g ive n b irth to f ou r c hil dr e n. Tw o o f the se c hil dr en were st il l livin g wi th R .M ., a nda ft e r W. M. a ndR.M

. marrie d, they

eventua lly

had four children of

their own.T his chil d wa s o ne o f R .M .’ s and W .M .’ s d au gh t ers. 1

W

. M

. i s no t t he b i o l o gi cal f at her of t hese chi l d ren. T hei r bi o l o gi cal f at her was R

. M

. ’ s second hus b and who 2 i s de ce as ed. -2- R.M . p ro ve d to be a n a

bu siv e pa re nt w ho ro uti ne ly

be a t a ndbe little d h e r c hil dr e n. Whil e liv ing in F lorida , s he te mpo ra ri ly los t c us tod y of thetw o o lde r c hil dr e n b e c aus e sh e be a t th e m w ith a c l o t h e s h a n g e r

a n de v e n b r o k e o n e c h i l d ’ s l e g . A f t e r t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e r e t u r n e dt o h e r c u s t o d y, R.M . andW.M. mov e d to Al abama wh e re , b othin 199 3 an d 199 5, he r co nd uc t for c e d the State to re mov e a ll s ix ch ildre n f

ro m he r c us tod y

be c aus e of

abu se a ndne g le c t. R.M . an d W.M. m ov e d to Colorado with the childre n wher e, in 1997, all six children wer e ag ain re moved from the c ouple’s custody afte r it was discove re d that R.M. had ag ain beaten one of her daug hters with a c lothes hang er. The Colorado authorit i es eventually returne d five of the six children to the c ouple’s 1 custody . The c hild who had bee n beate n with the clothes hang er remained in state custody and wa s eventua lly

place d with one of W.M.’s relatives living in Tenne ssee. R.M . w a s e mpl oy e d a s a c are take r f

or a n e lderl y cou pl e whilethefamil y wa s li vin g in Colorado. She was a

rre sted in Marc h 1998 afte r the c ouple discover ed that she h ad stolen over $76,000 from them. As soon as she wa s relea sed on bond, R.M. fled to Vene zuela taking the five c hil dr e n inhe r c us tod y

wi th h e r. W.M. re ma ine d intheUn ite d St a te s a nda t so me po int mov e d to Tenne ssee. R.M. started out living with her family in Vene zuela. However, whe n her f amily discovere d that R. M. wa s e va din g c ri min a l pr os e c uti on in the Un ite d St a te s, the y thr e a te ne d to turn h e r o ve r t o the Vene zuelan authorities. R.M. and the chil d re n then moved into a re nted house. R.M. left the children a lone in the house for two wee ks whi l e s h e t ra v el ed to Cara cas. D uring that time, the children w ereleft to fend f or themselves w ithout food or adult supervision. R.M . e ve ntu a lly

de c ide d to le a ve Ve ne zue la be c aus e he r r e lativ e s c on tin ue d th re a te nin g to turn h e r o v e r to th e au th o r itie s . Sh e a n d th e f iv e c h il d r e n tr a v e le d to V e r mo n t w h e re she was arr ested in June 1998. W hen R.M. was extradited to Colora do, the five c hildren we re se nt to live w i t h W

. M

. i n T e n n e s s e e . A f t e r h e r r e t u r n t o C o l o r a d o , R

. M

. p l e dg u i l t y t o t h e f tf r o mt h e e l d e rl y c ou plea ndwa s se nte nc e d to se rv e tw e lvey e ars in the Col or a do priso n s y ste m. As it turne d o ut, the c hil dr e n’ s live s withW.M. we reno be tte r than th e y ha d b e e n w ithR.M

. I n J uly 2000, the Tenne ssee De partment of C h i l d ren’ s Services f iled a petition in the L awr ence CountyJ uvenile Court see king te mporary custody of the c hildren bec ause W.M. h ad beate n them wi th a wo od e n dr

ums tic k. W.M. wa s a

rr e ste d andinc arc e rate d inL a wr e nc e Cou nty . T he juv e nil e court de clar ed the c hildren to be de pendent and neg lected and direc ted the De partment to pl acethem in foster c are . I n November 2000, the court approve d placing the two older c hildren, over R.M.’s 2 objections, with two of W.M.’s relatives who lived in L awr ence burg . The thre e re maining c hildren wer e plac ed in foster

car e.T h i s pr oce edi n g di d n ot i n v ol v e t h e t wo ch i l dr en f r om R. M

. ’ s s ec on d ma r r i ag e. T h es e ch i l dr en h ad al r ea dy 3 b e e n p la c e d w ith W .M .’s re la tive s. T h is re c o rd d o e s n o t i n d ic a te tha t t h e D e p a rtm e n t un d e rto o k to ter m ina te R .M .’s p arent al ri ght s wi t h regard to t hese chil d ren; ho wever, bo t h of t hem had reached t he age o f m ajo ri t y by t he t i m e o f t he tria l i n this c a se .

T enn . C od e A nn . § 36- 1- 11 3(g ) ( 6) permi t s t he t er mi nat i on of a pare nt ’ s pare nt al r i gh t s wh en “ [ t ] he pare nt ha s 4 been conf

i ned i n a cor r ect i onal or det ent i on f aci l i t y of an y t y pe, by order of

t he cour t as a r es ul t of

a c r i mi nal ac t , un der a s en t en ce of t en ( 10) or mor e y ea r s , an d t h e ch i l d i s u n der ei g h t ( 8) y ea r s of ag e at t h e t i me t h e s en t en ce i s e n t er ed by the c o u rt.”

T hi s ri ght exi st s no t wi t hst and i ng t he m ari t al s t at us o f t he chi l d ’ s b i o l o gi cal p arent s where a b i o l o gi cal pa rent 5 h a s e sta b lishe d o r is a ttem p ting to e sta b lish a r e la tio n sh ip w ith the c h ild

. Le hr v . Rober t s on , 463 U

. S. 248, 262, 103 S. C t. 2 9 8 5 , 2 9 9 3 -9 4 (1 9 8 3 ); In r e D. A. H. , 1 4 2 S .W .3 d 2 6 7 , 2 7 4 (T e n n . 2 0 0 4 ); J o n e s v . G a rre tt , 92 S. W

. 3d 835, 840 (T e n n . 2 0 0 2 ); In r e Swans on , 2 S .W .3d 1 8 0 , 1 8 8 n.1 2 (T en n. 1 9 9 9 ). T he ri gh t also ex t en d s t o ad o p t i ve p are nts. Si m m ons v . Si m m ons , 9 0 0 S .W .2 d 6 8 2 , 6 8 4 (T e n n . 1 9 9 5 ).

U

. S. Cons t
. a men d. X I V , § 1; T en n . Cons t
. a r t
. I , § 8. 6 -3- I n A ug us t 20 02 , th e De pa rtme nt f ile d a pe tit ion in the Chanc e ry Cou rt fo r L a wr e nc e Cou nty to terminate both W.M.’s and R.M.’s pa renta l rights with r eg ard to the ir four c hildren. W.M. never 3 responde d to the petition, and the court terminated his par ental rig hts by d efau l t i n Marc h 2003. R.M., however , contested the termination of her pare ntal rig hts. Following hearings in Septembe r and Nove mber 2004, the tria l court filed an order on Dec ember

9, 2004 termi n at i n g her pa renta l rig hts on the ground of abandonment under Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 36- 1-113(g )(1) and 36-1- 102(1)( A)(iv)

. The court terminated R.M.’s pa renta l rights with r eg ard to the y oung est child based on Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(g )(6)

. The trial court also conclude d that the intere sts of all four 4 c hil dr e n w ou ld b e be st s e rv e d b y te rm inatin g R.M .’ s p are ntal rig hts

.

II. T HE S TA N D A R D S F OR R E VI E W I NG T E RM I NAT I ON O RDE RS A biologic al par ent’s rig ht to the car e and custody of his or her child is among the oldest of 5 the judicially

rec og nized liberty

interests protec ted by

the Due Proc ess Clauses of the f eder al and state c on sti tution s. Trox e l v . G ra nv ill e , 5 30 U. S. 5 7, 65 , 12 0 S. Ct. 20 54 , 2 05 9- 60 (2 00 0) ; Ha wk 6 v . H awk , 85 5 S.W. 2d57 3, 57 8- 79 (T e nn . 1 99 3) ; Ray v . Ray , 83 S.W .3d 726, 731 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). While this right i s fundame ntal and superior to the claims of other persons and the g overnme nt, it is not absolute. Sta te v . C. H. K. , 1 5 4 S

. W

. 3 d 5 8 6 , 5 8 9 ( T e n n . C t
. A p p . 2 0 0 4 )

. It continues without interruption only as long as a parent ha s not relinquished it, abandone d it, or eng ag ed in conduc t requiring its li mitation or termination. Blair v. Badenhope , 77 S.W .3d 137, 141 (T e nn . 2 00 2) ; In re S.M

. , 1 49 S.W. 3d63 2, 63 8 ( Te nn . Ct

. Ap p. 20 04 ); In re M .J.B. , 140 S.W .3d 643, 652-53 (Te nn. Ct. App. 2004). Termination proc eeding s in Tennesseeareg overne d by statute. Parties who ha ve standing to seek the te rmination of a biolog ical par ent’s parental rig hts must prove two things. F irst, theyT h e s t at u t or y g r ou n ds for t er mi n at i n g pa r en t al r i g h t s a r e fou n d i n T en n . Code An n . § 36- 1- 113( g ) ( Su pp. 7 2 0 0 4 ).
T he f act o rs t o be co nsi d ered i n a “ b est i nt erest s” anal y si s are f o und i n T enn. C o d e A nn. § 3 6

- 1

- 1 1 3 (i ). 8 -4- must prove the exi stence of at lea st one of the statutory g rounds for te rmination. Tenn. Code Ann. 7 § 3 6- 1- 11 3( c )( 1) ; In re D.L.B. , 11 8 S.W. 3d 36 0, 36 7 ( Te nn . 2 00 3) ; J on e s v . G ar re tt , 92 S.W .3d at 83 8. Se c on d, the y

mus t pr ov e that te rm inatin g thepa re nt’ s pare ntal rig hts is i n th e c hil d’ s b e st int e re sts
. Te nn . Co de An n. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( c )( 2) ; I n r e A

. W. , 114 S.W .3d 541, 545 (Tenn. Ct. App. 8 20 03 ); I n re C

. W. W. , 3 7 S. W.3 d 4 67 , 4 75 -7 6 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 0) ; In re M. W .A ., J r. , 980 S.W .2d 620, 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). No civil ac tion carries with it graver c onsequenc es than a petition to sever familyties ir re trie va bly a ndfo re ve r. Te nn . Co de An n. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( i) (1 ); M.L.B. v. S.L.J. , 519 U.S. 102, 119, 11 7 S. Ct . 5 55 , 5 65 (19 96); In re Kno tt , 1 38 Te nn . 3 49 , 3 55 , 1 97 S.W. 10 97 , 1 09 8 ( 19 17 ); In re D. D. K. , No. M2003-01016-COA- R3-PT, 2003 W L 23093929, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec . 30, 2003) (No Te nn. R. App. P. 11 application filed). Be cause the stakes are so profoundly high, T enn. Code An n. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( c )( 1) re qu ir e s p e rs on s se e kin g to t e rm inate a bio log ic a l pa

re nt’ s p are ntal rig hts to prove the s t at utory

g rounds for te rmination by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e. This heig htened burden of proof minimiz es the risk of e rrone ous decisions. I n re C

. W. W. , 37 S.W. 3da t 47 4; In re M. W .A ., J r. , 980 S.W .2d at 622. Evidencesatisfy ing the clea r and c onvincing evidenc e standa rd establishes that the truth of the fa cts asserted is highly probable , Sta te v . D e ma rr , No. M2002-02603- COA-R3-JV, 2003 W L 21946726, at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug . 13, 2003) (No T enn. R. App. P. 11 application filed) , and eliminates any serious or substantia l d o ubt about the cor rec tness of the conclusions draw n from the evidenc e. In re Vale ntine , 7 9 S. W.3 d 5 39 , 5 46 (T e nn . 2 00 2) ; In re S.M

. , 14 9 S. W.3 d at 63 9; In re J .J .C. , 1 48 S.W. 3d91 9, 92 5 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 200 4) . It pr od uc e s ina fa c tfinder’ s mind a firm belief or conviction re g arding the truth of the f acts s o u gh t t o be esta

blished. In re A.D .A. , 8 4 S. W.3 d 5 92 , 5 96 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 2) ; Ray v . Ray , 83 S .W .3 d at 73 3; In re C

. W. W. , 37 S.W .3d at 474. Be causeof the g ravity

of their c onsequenc es, proc eeding s to terminate par ental rig hts require individualiz ed dec ision making. In re Swanson , 2 S.W .3d at 188. Acc ording ly , Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( k) exp l i ci tly require s courts terminating pare ntal rig hts to “enter w ritten order s containing specific finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law” whether they have be en re quested to do so or not. I

n re S.M. , 149 S.W .3d at 639; In re M .J.B. , 1 40 S.W. 3da t 65 3- 54 . T he se sp e c if ic finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law fa cilitate appe llate re view and pr omote just and speedy resolution of appe als. When a lower court ha s failed to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1- 1 1 3 (k ), t h e ap p el l at e c o u rt s m u s tre m an dt h e c as e w i t h d i re ct i o n s t o p re p a r e t h e r eq u i re dfi n d i n gs of fa ct and c onclusions of law. In re D.L.B. , 1 18 S.W. 3da t 36 7; In re K.N.R. , No. M2003-01301- COA-R3-PT, 2003 WL 22999427, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2003) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed)

.T h e s e de c i s i on s dr a w a di s t i n c t i on be t w e e n s pe c i f i c f a c t s a n d t h e c om bi n e d w e i g h t of t h e s e f a c t s . T e n n . R. 9 A p p . P . 1 3 (d ) re q u ire s u s to d e fer to the trial c o u rt’s sp e c ifi c fi n d ing s o f fa c t as lo n g a s the y a re su p p o rte d b y a pr epon der an ce of

t h e ev i den ce . H owe v er , we ar e t h e on es wh o m u s t t h en det er mi n e wh et h er t h e c ombi n ed we i g h t of t hese fact s p rovides cl ear and co nvi nci ng evi d ence supp o rt i ng t he t ri al co urt ’ s ul t i m at e f act ua l c o n c lus i o n. T he T enness ee S up rem e C o urt us ed t hi s ap p roac h i n In r e Va l ent i ne wh en i t re cog n i ze d t h e di f fer en ce bet we en t h e con cl u s i on t hat a bi ol ogi cal par ent ha d no t c o m p l i ed su b st ant i al l y wi t h h er obl i gat i ons i n a per manen cy pl an and t he f act s r el i ed u p o n b y the tria l c o u rt to su p p o rt this c o n c lus io n . In r e Val ent i ne , 79 S. W

. 3d a t 548- 49; se e a lso J o n e s v . G a rre tt , 92 S .W .3 d a t 8 3 8 -3 9

. -5- The he ighte ned burde n of proof mandated by

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( c)( 1) re quires us to a da pt T e nn . R. App . P. 13 (d )’ s c us tom ary stand ardof

re vie w f or c a se s o f this so rt . F ir st, wemus t revie w the trial court’s specific finding s of fac t de novo in a ccor dance with Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). Thus, eac h of the trial c ourt’s spec ific fa ctual finding s will be p resumed to be corr ect unless the evidenc e pre ponderates otherwise . Second, we must determi n e wh ether the fac ts, either as f ound by thetria l c ou rt

or a s su pp orte d b y

the pr e po nd e ranc e of

thee vid e nc e , c le arl y

a ndc on vin c ing ly establish the elements require d to te rminate a biological pa rent’s pa renta l rig hts. J

on e s v . G ar re tt , 92 S.W. 3da t 83 8; In re Vale ntine , 79 S.W .3d at 548-49; In re S.M

. , 1 49 S.W. 3da t 64 0; In re M .J.B. , 140 S.W .3d at 654. 9
III .

T HE A D EQU A C Y OF THE D E P ART M E NT ’ S E VI DE NCE R.M. concede s that the Depa rtment prese nted suffic ient evidenc e to support terminating her par en t al rig hts with reg ard to he r y oung est child pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( g )(6)

. Howeve r, she a sserts that the trial c ourt err ed by terminating her parenta l rig hts with reg ard to the three remaining c h ildr en bec ause the Depa rtment had failed to present c lear and convinc ing e vidence that she had abandone d her children in a ccor dance with T enn. Code Ann. §§ 36-1-113( g )(1) and 36- 1- 10 2( 1) (A )( iv) . We fi ndno me ri t inthi s a rg ume nt. A par ent’s abandonment of his or her child provides g rounds for te rminating his or her pa re ntal rig hts . T he mos t c om mo n bas is for fi nd ing aband on me nt i s a pa re nt’ s w ill fu l f

a ilu reto support or to visit his or her child. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( 1)(A) (i). Howeve r, in ca ses wher e the par ent is incarc erated when the termination petition is filed, abandonme nt may also be made out by introduci n g ev i dencethat “the pa rent . . . ha s eng ag ed in conduc t prior to incar cer ation which exhibi ts a wanton disre g ard f or the we lfareof the c hild.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( 1)(A) (iv). Al tho ug h “ wanto n d isr e g ard ” ha s n ot b e e n s peci fi cal lyde fi ne d, thi s c ou rt ha s f ou ndthat pa

re nts manifest wanton disreg ard w hen they (1) e ng ag e in re peate d crimin al activity , State Dep’ t of Children’ s S er vs . v. F. E. B ., No . E 20 01 -0 09 42 -C OA -R 3- JV, 2 00 3 WL 29 61 85 , at *3 (T e nn . Ct

. App. Fe b. 12, 2 0 0 3 ) (N o Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed) ; (2) abusedrug s, State Dep’ t of Children’s Service s v. W

iley , N o. E1 99 9- 01 21 6- CO A- R3- CV , 1 99 9 WL 10 68 72 6, a t *7 ( Te nn . Ct

. App. Nov. 24, 1999), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. A pr. 24, 2000); and ( 3) lea ve childre n unsupervised without food or nec essities, I n re C

. W. W. , 37 S.W .3d at 475.In var i o us l et t ers f rom p ri son, R

. M

. cal l ed o ne o f her d aught ers “ ugl y ” and accused her of be i ng a “ l i ar. ” She 10 al s o m ade v ei l ed t hr eat s about wh at s he i nt ended t o do fol l owi ng he r r el eas e f r om pri s on. I n one l et t er s he wr ot e: I am p l anni ng and i s current l y l o o ki ng i nt o a C hri st i an gi rl scho o l , w here you wi l l l i ve t here, eat t here u n til I g e t o u t, the n I w ill d e a l with yo u . A t t h e ra te yo u a re go ing , yo u r re p u ta tio n w ill stink so b a d ly in th a t sc h o o l, yo u w ill fee l l ike d ying

. . . . I f y ou f eel t hat I am i n ja i l and can ’ t d o any t hi ng you ar e d ead wrong

. I can do mo r e i n h er e t han I ca n o n the o u tsid e . T he D ep art m ent i s no t s eeki ng t o t erm i nat e R

. M

. ’ s p arent al ri ght s und er T enn. C o d e A nn. § 36

- 1

- 1 1 3 (g) (4). 11 T h e re fo re , i t i s n o t re q u ire d to p ro v e tha t t h e se b e a ting s a m o u n te d to se v e re c h ild a b u se . -6- I n forming its conclusion that R.M. had shown a wanton disreg ard f or the we lf

ar e of her children, the trial court c onsidered the Depa rtment’s evide nce of

R.M.’s habitual phy sical abuse of her chi ld ren, the c hil dr e n’ s r e pe a te d s tin ts i n f os te r c arein thr e e dif

fe re nt s tate s, thedang e r R .M

. exposed the children to when she was evading arr est, and R .M.’s continued psy cholog ical abuseof he r c hil dr e n. R.M .’ s r e sp on se is t o trivi a lize the e vid e nc e of abu se by c ha ra c te ri zing it a s a

pp ro priate corpor al punishment and by blaming he r pre dicament on W.M.’s relatives. R.M.’s ch a

r a cterization of her conduc t as leg itimate discipline does littl e to chang e the nature of the horrible abuse she inflicted upon her children. The impact of the chil d re n ’s t es t i mony reg arding their mother’ s actions cannot be undermined b y R

. M

. ’s s elf-se rving assertions that her a c tio ns didno t a mou nt t o a bu se. Abu se it

su re ly wa s, a ndno re a so na

blepe rs on re vie wi ng thi s re c or d c ou ld r e a c h any

c on c lus ionoth e r than the fa c t tha t R.M. abu se d he r c hil dr e n, bo th p hy sic a lly and psy cholog ically , up until the tim e she w as arrested in Vermont. I n fac t, R.M. continued to be psy cholog ically

abusive to her

children a fter shewas inca rce rate d. 10 The only conclusion that can be rea sonably draw n from this re cord is that f or y ear s R.M.’s conduct ha s manifested w anton disreg ard f or her children’ s welfa

re. This c onduct i n cl udes the phy sical beatings she inf

licted on t he children, the ps y cholog ical abuse, and the dang er she exposed 11 the childre n to in Venezuela whe n s he wa s fleeing from the authorities. Ba sed on the c hilling evidenc e pre sented at trial, we have li ttle difficulty ag ree ing with the t rial court’s conclusion that the Depa rtment prese nted clea

r and c onvincing evidenc e that R.M. abandone d her thre e childre n.

IV. T HE C HILDR EN ’ S B EST I N TERESTS R.M. also asserted that even if the Depa rtment has prove d g rounds for t er m i n ation under Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(g ), the De partment failed to pr esent clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that terminating her pa

renta l rig hts is in her children’ s best interests as r equire d by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( c)( 2). We disag ree . The c hild ren involved in this casewill clearly be better off onc e R.M.’s pare ntal rig hts are te rminated.-7-

The fa ctors to be considere d during the i ndividualiz ed “be st interests” dec ision-making a re included in Tenn. Code A nn. § 36-1 -1 1 3(i). As wehave stated, “[t] he listed fac tors arenot exhaustive. The statute does not re quire e very fac tor to app ear befor e a c ourt can find that te r mi n a ti o n is in a c h il d ’ s b e s t inter est.” S t a t e o f T e n n . D e p ’ t o f Ch i l d re n ’ s S e r

v s . v . T

. S

. W. , No. M2 00 1- 01 73 5- CO A- R3- CV , 2 00 2 WL 97 04 34 , at *3 (T e nn . Ct. App

. May 10 , 2 00 2) (N o T e nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 1 a

pp lic a tio n f

ile d) . Wh e n th e int e re sts of thec hil d andthepa

re nts div e rg e , th e be st interests of the c hild will alway s prevail. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1- 101(d) ( 2001). R.M. is current l y i n car cer ated. De spite numerous par enting classes, pa renting plans, and repe ated intervent i o n s i n three states, she c ontinued to abuse he r childre n phy sically and psy cholog ically . She has not seen he r childre n in six y ear s, and those of he r childre n who testified in this case reque sted that her pare ntal rig hts be terminated. I n the fa ce of this evidence , R.M. states that sh e ha s ta

ke n s e ve ral sel f- he lp pare nti ng c la sse s inpriso n andthat sh e ha s atte mpt e d to ma int a in a par ental re lationship with her children throug h corr espondenc e. The thr ea t en i n g t enor of her le tt ers , h ow e ve r, lik e theon e wequ ote d e a rl ie r, de mon str a te that R. M. ha s n ot s uc c e ssf ull y addre ssed her

abusive re lationship with her children. We ha ve no dif

fi c ulty a g re e ing wi th the tria l cou rt ’s fi nd ing s with re sp e c t to the fa c tor s in Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(i). There co rd demonstrates clea rly and convinc ingly

that the children’ s interests would be be st served by terminating R.M.’s pa

renta l rig hts. There fore , the court did not err whe n it terminated her pare ntal rig hts to her four c hildren.

V. We a ff irm th e tria l c ou rt ’s De c e mbe r 9, 20 04 jud g me nt te rm inatin g R.M .’ s p are ntal rig hts with reg ard to her four c hildren with W.M. and remand this ca se to the trial court for further proce eding s consistent with this opi nion. We tax the costs of this appeal to the Tenne s see De pa rtme nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s.

_______________________________ WILL I AM C. K OC H, JR., P. J., M. S.