T h e c h ild w a s in th e ho sp ital a t t h e ti m e o f t h e inv e stiga tio n
. 1 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE D ec em be r 5, 200 6 S es sio n IN TH E MATTE R OF: S. L. A. Appeal f romthe Juvenile Court for F entre ss County No. 2202A P aul Crouch, Jud ge

No. M2006- 01536-COA-R 3-P T - F iled on Decem ber 19, 2006

Mother appe als the termination of he r par ental rig hts, contend i n g t h e evidenc e wa s not clear and c on vin c ing that sh e aban do ned he r c hil d a ndthat te rm inatio n o f h e r p are nta l rig hts is i n th e be st int e re st o f the c hil d. Th e tria l c ou rt found the mothe r h a d a

band on e d th e c hil d b y

e ng a g ing in conduc t that exhi bited a wanton disreg ard f or the we lfareof her

child, which conduc t included inge sting drugs while preg nant and while brea st feeding , and the manuf actur e of me thamphetamine in the famil y

ho me . We a ff

irm. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Juvenile Court Affi rm ed
F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opi nion of the court, in which W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S., and P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J ., joined.
J ames P. Romer, Jamestown, Tennessee , for the a ppellant, F.M.S., a/k/a F .M.S.A.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r, a nd Do ug la s E arl Di mon d, Se nio r C ou ns e l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee. OP IN ION
OnAu g us t 30 , 2 00 5, theTe nn e sse e De pa rt me nt o f C hildr e n’ s Se rv ic e s f ile d a pe tit ionto te rm inate thepa

re nta l rig hts of

themothe r t o h e r i nf

a nt so n on th e gr ou nd s o f a band on me nt, substantial non-compliance with the permanency plan, the exis tence of conditions that pr event the return of the child and that the te rmination is in the best interest of the c hild.
The c hild was born pre maturely on Fe bruary

8, 2004, weig hing only

3.7 pounds. At birth, he tested positive for

opiates due to The mother’s drug use whil e p regnant. On Marc h 4, 2004, sh ortly a ft e r the c hil d w a s b orn, a DC S Chi ld P ro te c tiv e Se rv ic e s in ve sti g a tor a nda F e ntr e ss C ou nty law enf orce ment office r visited the mother’s home upon a re fer ral re g arding her d ru g use. They 1 discovere d meth am p h et am ine lab equipment and needle s for drug inge stion in t he home. TheIt is a lleg e d in the re c o rd tha t t h e m o the r’s h u sb a n d m a d e the m e tha m p h e ta m ine lab

. 2

T h e fo ste r m o the r w a s a li c e n se d p ra c tica l nu rs e e x p e rie n c e d in r e sp ira to ry d ise a se s a n d o the r su c h a ilm e n ts 3 fro m w h ic h the c h ild su ff e re d

.
T h e m o the r te stif

ie d tha t t h e fath e r, w h o m sh e m e t i n d ru g re h a b ili ta tio n , g o e s b y the na m e J o n a h , b u t she c o u ld 4

n o t p ro v id e furth e r d e ta ils o f his id e n tit y. -2- mother was subsequently arr ested and pleade d g uilty to f acilitati o n t o manufa cture methamphetamine w hich led to her incar cer ation. T h e m other is cur rently in prison and not 2 expected to be r elea sed until J anuary 2007, at the ea

rliest.
Th e me dic a lly

fr a g ile c hil d w a s p la c e d in thec us tod y of we ll- su ite d f

os te r p are nts sh ortly afte r the mother’ s arr est in Marc h 2004. The c hild has remaine d in their ca re in the interim, and the 3 fo ste r pare nts are se e kin g a do pti on
. Th e mothe r’ s h us banda t th e tim e of c on c e pti on su rr e nd e re d h is rig hts when DNA t esting of t he child ruled him out as t he father, and the identity of the biolog ical fathe r wa s unknown. Thus, the mother is the only party to the action. 4
Th e mothe r’ s p are nta l rig hts we rete rm inate d inpa rt du e to t he fo llo wi ng fi nd ing s o f f a c t:

• The c hild was pl ac ed in the custody of the Te nnessee Depa

rtment of Children’s Service s due to depe ndency and neg lect on or a

bout March 4, 2004 and had re mained continuously

in foster c are since Mar ch 4, 2004.

• The mother ha s been incar cer ated continuously (first in jail awaiting sente ncing and then prison) since the child entered foster care. The mother wa s alrea dy on probation fr om a Ma rc h 2 00 3 c on vic tio n r e late d to me thamph e ta min e wh e n s he ple d g uil ty in theCr imi na l Co urt of

F e ntr e ss Co un ty , T e nn e sse e on Ma rc h 2 6, 20 04 to the Cla ss D fe lony of F acilitation to Manufac ture Methamphetamine.

• The mother e ng ag ed in such conduct prior to incarc eration (i.e. the conduc t which led to her inca

rce ration) a s to ex hibit a wanton disreg ard f or the we lfareof the c hild.

• The mother g ave birth to the child prematurely and he te sted positive for opiates on his meconi u m dru g s c r e e n
. T h e mo th e r a d mi tt e d to th e u s e o f

mo rp h in e a nd hy drocodone during her pr eg nancy for whic h she did not have a presc ription.

• On the d a y o f th e D e p artm e n t’ s r e mo v a l o f th e c h il d ( 3

- 4

- 0 6 ) , th e mo th e r a n dher hu sb a nd ha d a

me thamph e ta min e la

b inhe r h ome . N ume ro us c he mic a l c omp on e nts and pa raphe rnalia c ommonlyused to manufa cture methamphetamine w ere found throug hout the home by Fe ntress C ounty Sheriff’ s Deputy

J ohnny Murphy who was acc ompanied by

Depa rtment Case Mana g er F isher.-3-

• The mother w as denie d parole on J une 13, 2005 due to the se riousness of he r off ense. Her next parole hea

ring revie w is Dec ember

2006.
Ba sed upon the a

bove finding s, the trial court found multipl e g rounds for te rmination exi sted including a

bandonment pursuant to Tenn . Code Ann. § 36-1- 102(1)( A)(iv) , and that conditions persist that preve nt the return of the child pursuant to Te nn. Code Ann. § 36-1- 113(g )(3) (A). T he trial court a lso found that the termination of the mother ’s par ental rig hts was in the best interest of the child pursuant to Te nn. Code Ann. § 36-1- 113(i).
The mother a

ppeals, c ontending that the state failed to prove b y cl ea r and convincing evidenc e that the mother

“abandoned” he r son and that the termination of her pa renta l rig hts is in t he best interest of the child.
S TA N D A R D O F R EVIEW
Parents have a fundame ntal rig ht to the car e, custody and contr ol of their childre n. Stanley
v . I lli no is , 40 5 U. S. 64 5, 65 1 ( 19 72 ); Ha wk v . H awk , 855 S.W .2d 573, 577 (Tenn. 1993) . This rig ht is superior to the claims of other p er s o n s an d t h e government, y et it is not absolute. A court may terminate a

pare nt’s pare n tal rig hts if it finds byclea r and c onvincing evidenc e that one of the statutory g rounds for te rmination of parental rights has been e stablished and that the termination of su c h rig hts is in the be st inte re sts of thec hil d. Te nn . Co de An n. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( c ); J on e s v . G ar re tt , 92 S.W. 3d83 5, 83 8 ( Te nn . 2 00 2) ; I n r e A

. W. , 1 14 S .W .3 d 5 41 , 5 44 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 3) ; In re C

. W. W. , 37 S.W .3d 467, 475-76 (Te nn. Ct. App. 2000).
The c lear and convinc ing e vidence stan d ar d is a heig htened bur den of pr oof which se rves to minim ize the risk of err oneous dec isions. I n r e C

. W. W. , 37 S.W. 3da t 47 4; Ma tte r o f M .W .A ., J r. , 980 S.W .2d 620, 622 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). Evidence satisfy ing this hig h standard pr oduces a firm belief or conviction reg arding the t ruth of facts soug ht to be established. I n r e C

. W. W. , 37 S.W .3d at 474. The c lear

and convinc ing e vidence standard de fies pre cise de finition. Ma jor s v . S mi th , 776 S.W .2d 538, 540 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989). It is more exacting than the pre ponderance of the evidenc e standard, Santosky v . Kramer , 455 U. S. at 7 66 , 1 02 S. Ct . at 14 01 ; Rentenbac h Eng'g Co. v. General Realty Ltd. , 707 S.W .2d 524, 527 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985), y et it does not require such ce rtainty as the bey ond a re asonable doubt standard. Brandon v. W right , 838 S.W .2d 532, 536 (Tenn. Ct. App. 19 92 ); State v. Grov es , 735 S

. W

. 2 d 8 4 3, 846 (Tenn. Crim. App.1987) . Clear and convincing evidenc e eliminates a ny serious or substantial doubt conce rning the cor rec tness of the c onclusions to be dra wn from the e vidence , s ee Ho d g es v. S.C. Toof

& Co. , 833 S.W .2d 896, 901 n. 3 (Tenn. 1992), and it should produce a firm be lief o r co n viction with reg ard to the truth of the alleg ations soug ht to be established. In re Estate of Armstrong , 859 S.W .2d 323, 328 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993) ; Brandon v. W

right , 8 38 S.W. 2d

a t 53 6; W

iltcher v. Bradley , 708 S.W .2d 407, 411 (Tenn. Ct. App. 19 85 ). It is un de r this he ig hte ne d s ta nd ardthat w e mus t r e vie w the tria l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing s.T e n n . C o d e A n n
. § 3 6 -1 -1 0 2 (1 )( A ) p ro v id e s, in p e rtine n t p a rt: F o r p u rp o se s o f t e rm ina ting the p a re n ta l righ ts 5 of a pa r en t of

a ch i l d "aba n don men t " mean s t h at : (i v ) A par en t i s i n ca r ce r at ed a t t h e t i me of t h e i n s t i t u t i on of

a n a ct i on or pr oce edi n g t o de cl ar e a ch i l d t o be a n a ban don ed ch i l d, or t h e par en t or g u ar di an h as be en i n ca r ce r at ed du r i n g a l l or p a rt o f t h e fo u r (4 ) m o n ths im m e d ia te ly p re c e d ing the institutio n o f suc h a c tio n o r p ro c e e d ing , a n d e ithe r h a s w ill fully f ai l ed t o vi si t or has wi l l f ul l y f ai l ed t o supp o rt o r has wi l l f ul l y f ai l ed t o m ake reasonab l e p ayments t o ward t he supp o rt o f t he chi l d fo r fo ur (4) co nsecut i ve m o nt hs i m m ed i at el y prece d i ng s uch p arent ' s o r guar d i an' s i ncarcerat i o n, or t he p arent or g u ar di an h as e n g ag ed i n con du ct pri or t o i n ca r ce r at i on t h at ex h i bi t s a wan t on di s r eg ar d for t h e we l f ar e of t h e ch i l d.

See In r e Me a g a n E. , N o. E2005- 02440- CO A- R3- PT , 2006 W L 1473917, a t * 5 ( T en n
. Ct

. App. M ay 30, 6 2 0 0 6 ), fo r an o f

f i cer’ s t est i m o ny noti ng t hat m et ham p het am i ne ab sorb s i nt o any t hi ng po rous and that t he chem i cal s are h igh ly p o iso n o u s.

-4- A B ANDON M E NT
The termination of pare ntal rig hts may be initiated as the re sult of a par ent’s abandonment of a child. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( g )(1)

. Abandonment oc curs, inte r a lia , when the pa rent ha s “has e ng ag ed in conduc t prior to incar cer ation that exhibi ts a wanton disre g ard f or the we lfareof the child.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 36-1- 102(1)( A)(iv)

. Wanton disreg ard f or the we lfare of the child can 5 be established by the parent’s pre vious criminal conduct a long w ith a history of drug abuse. See I

n re AudreyS. , 1 82 S.W. 3d83 8, 86 7- 68 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 5) ; State Dept. of Children's Service s v. J.S. , No. M2000-03212-COA- R3-J V, 2001 WL 1285894, at *3 (Te nn. Ct. Ap p
. Oc t. 25, 2001); State v. Osborne , No. 01A01-9810- J V-00564, 1999 WL 557543, at *6 (Te nn. C t

. App. Aug. 2, 1999).
I n the ca se, In re C.T.S. , 156 S.W .3d 18 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004), this Court aff irmed the trial court’s te rmination of par ental rig hts on the g round of a bandonment, Te nn. Code An n. § 36-1-102( 1)(A) (iv), finding that the mother’s ing estion of cr ack c ocai n e while pre g nant with her child and the c hild’s addiction to cocaine at birth “c learly exhibi ts a wanton disre g ard f or the we lfare of the c hild.” In re C.T.S. , 156 S.W .3d at 25.
I n the pre sent ca se, the mother a dmitted to usi ng methamphetam i n e, m o rphi ne, and hy droc o d o n e whi le pre g nant with the child and e arlier provided a

statement to law e nforc ement e xpla ini ng that sh e ha d “ sh ot up ” me thamph e ta min e tw ic e on theday that la w e nf

or c e me nt andDC S arrived at her h o m e. Further, a fter the child was born and the child re mained in the hospital, the mother wa s storing he r bre ast milk in t h e t ra i l er t hat was c onverte d to a methamphetamine lab, putting the c hild at gr eate r risk d u e t o the poisonous properties of the che micals containe d in a methamphetamine la

b that could be inadve rtently inge sted along with the brea st mil k. 6W h ile th e c h ild w a s in th e ho sp ital, the m o the r w o u ld p u m p he r m ilk into b a b y b o ttl e s. 7
-5- T h e m o t h e r

c l a i m s s h e d i d n o t k n o w s h e w a s w i t h c h i l d u n t i l f i v e m o n t h s i n t o h e r

p r e g n a n c y; ho we ve r, thee vid e nc e ind ic a te s sh e us e d dru g s in thelate r m on ths of he r p re g nanc y . T his is d ue in part to the pre sence of opiates in the c hild’s sy stem at birth. She also admitted using dr ug s after the child’s birth and while br east fe eding the child. When the child was one month old she admitted 7 ha vin g “ sh ot- up me th” and the re fo rec on tin ue d to e xpos e thec hil d to he a lthri sk s a sso c iate d w ith methamphetamines.
This evidence , coupled with the a dditional circumstance s, clearly demonstrate a

wanton dis re g ard of

thec hil d. Th e re fo re , th e mothe r’ s r e c or d c on ta ins c le ar andc on vin c ing e vid e nc e to support the trial court’s termination of the mother’s pare ntal rig hts on the g round of a bandonment pursuant to Tenn. Code A nn. § 36-1-102( 1)(A) (iv).
C HILD ’ S B EST I N TERESTS
The mother c ontends the ev idence was insuffic ient to establish that termination of her pare ntal rig hts was in the best intere st of the child. I n determining whether termination of par ental ri gh t s i s i n t h e b es ti n t er es to f t h e c h i l d , t h e co u rt s h al l co n s i d er , b u t i s n o tl i m i t ed t o , t h e f o l l o wi n g: (1 ) Whe the r the pa

re nt or g ua

rd ia n ha s mad e su c h an a dju stm e nt of c ir c ums ta nc e , c on du c t, or conditions as to make it saf e and in the c hild's be st interest to be in the home of the pare nt or g uardia n; (2 ) Wh e the r the pa

re nt or g ua

rd ia n ha s fa ile d to ef

fe c t a lasting a dju stm e nt a ft e r r e a so na ble eff orts by available social services age ncies for such duration of time that lasting adjustment does not rea sonably

appea r possible; (3) Whether the parent or guar dian has maintained reg ular visitation or other c ontact with the child; (4) Whether a meaning ful relationship has otherwise been established betwee n the par ent or g uardia n and the c hild; (5 ) T h e e ff

ec ta c h an ge o f c ar et ak er s an d p h y s i ca l en v i ro n m en t i s l i k el y t o h av e o n t h e c h i l d 's emotional, psy cholog ical and me dical condition; (6) Whether

the par ent or g uardia n, or other pe rson re siding with the pa rent or g uardia n, has shown brutality , phy sical, sexual, emotional or psy cholog ical abuse , or neg lect toward the child, or anothe r child or a dult in the family or household; (7) Whether

the phy sical environment of the pa rent' s or g uardia n' s home is healthy and saf e, whether there i s cr i m i n al activityin the home, or whe ther ther e is such use of alcohol orW e no te w ith u n d e rs ta n d ing a n d e m p a thy th e fac t t h a t t h e m o the r h a s w ritten c h ild n u m e ro u s le tter s w h ile 8 i ncarcerat ed

. C o p i es of t hese l et t ers are i n t he reco rd. T hey cl earl y i nd i cat e an i nt ent on t he m o t her’ s b ehal f t o bo nd wi t h t he chi l d; howev er , l et t er s , wi t h not hi ng m ore, f ai l t o over com e what we f i nd t o be cl ear an d convi nci ng ev i dence t ha t i t i s i n the c hil d ’ s b est i ntere st t o t erm i na t e the m o t he r’ s ri gh t s. -6- controlled substanc es as may rende r the pa

rent or g uardia n consistently unable to ca

re f or the child in a safeand stable ma nner; (8) Whether

the par ent' s or g uardia n' s mental and/or emotional status would be detrimenta l to the child or prevent t he parent or g uardia n from effec tively providing safe and stable c are and supervision for the child; or (9) Whether

the par ent or g uardian has paid child support consistent with the child support g uidelines promulg ated by the depa rtment pursuant to § 36-5- 101. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( i). The foreg oing list , howeve r, i s not ex haustive, and the statute does no t re qu ir e e ve ry

fa c tor to a pp e ar b e fo rea

c ou rt c a n f indthat te rm inatio n is in a c hil d' s b e st i nte re st. S e e S ta t e o

f T N D e p t

. o f Ch i l d r e n '

s S v c s
. v . T

. S

. W. , N o
. M 2 0 0 1

- 0 1 7 3 5

- CO A

- R3

- CV , 2 0 0 2 WL 97 04 34 , at *3 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . M a y 10 , 2 00 2) ; see also In re I.C.G. , No. E2006-00746- COA-R3-PT, 2006 WL 3077510, at *4 (Te nn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2006).
Th e tria l cou rt

fo un d th a t te rm inatio n o f t he mothe r’ s p are nta l rig hts wa s inthebe st i nte re st of the c hil d for a

number of r easons including , (1) that the mother failed to e ffe ct a lasting adjustment after

rea sonable e fforts by

available soci al ag encie s, and (2) that a meaningf ul relationship had not othe rwise been established betwee n the child and the mother . The c hild is now mor e than tw o y e ars old , a nd themothe r h a s n ot b e e n a vaila bleto h e r s on sin c e he wa s o ne mon th old exce p t f

o r a f e w a n d v e r y

b r ie f p r is o n v is it s
. Si g n if

ic a n tl y , th e c h il d h a s b e e n w ith h is f o s te r 8 pare nts for his entire life and knows of no other home. The trial court f ound the most meaning ful relationship t hat the child has is with his foster pa rents and that a pre sent cha ng e of the car etake r and p h y s ic a l e n v ir o n me n t i s li k e ly to h a v e a

n e g a ti v e e f

f e c t o n th e c h il d ’ s e mo ti o n a l, p s y c h o lo g ic al and/or medic al condition.
The c hild’s best interests must be viewe d from the perspe ctive of the child, rather than that of the pa rent’s. W hite v. Moody , 171 S.W .3d 187, 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004) (citations omitted). The child has bee n in a loving f oster home with foster

pare nts who have pr ovided him with love and ca re. Moreove r, the foste r par ents with whom he has lived since he was one month old desire to adopt the c hil d. To allo w the c hil d to re turn to themothe r, wh ic h c ou ld n ot e ve n b e c on sid e re d u nti l sh e is rele ased f rom prison, would only

dela y t he inevitable and cause more lasting harm to the c hild. There fore , we f

ind the rec ord establishes by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that the termination of the mother’s rights is in the best intere st of the child.-7- T HE D E P ART M E NT ’ S U N R EASON A BLE P L AN AN D F AI L URE T O E X PE D I TE
As the trial co u rt an d n ow this court found ther e is clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that the mother eng ag ed in conduc t that exhi bited a wanton disreg ard f or the we lfareof her

child by inge sting drug s during her pr eg nancy and taking drug s while brea st feeding

. Although some of the re levant e vid e nc e wa s disc ov e re d lat e r, the mothe r’ s wa nto n disr e g ardfo r the we lf areof thec hil d w a s r e a dil y appar ent to the Depa

rtment on Marc h 4, 2004, the day t h e Department took custody of the c hild. Moreove r, within a fe w wee ks of taking cu s t o d y o f the c hild, the Department had re ceive d essentially

all of the re levant information that was ultimately introduced a s evidenc e. The signific ant eviden ce t h e De partment obtaine d within weeks a fter ta king c ustody

included the f

act the mother ha d a re c e nt fe lon y c on vic tio n f or kid na pp ing a ndthat sh e ple d g uil ty to ano the r f

e lon y , th e of

fe ns e of fa cilitatio n t o manufa cture methamphetamine, the arr est for w hich was the cata ly st for the Depa rtment taking custody

of the c hild on March 4, 2004, and the leng th of her prison sentence , wher e she r emains today

. Shortlythere afte r, and the fore g oing f acts notwithstanding , the Dep ar tment proposed and enter ed into a P lan wit h the m other, the sole purpose of which wa s reunific ation of the pa rent and child. The Plan ca lled for the mother to improve her lot in life. Unfortunately , with the leng th of her prison sentence , there was no fe asible way she would reas o n ab l y co m ply with the Plan. The point being he r failure wa s inevitable. Thus, the que stion is whydid the Depa rtment initiate a plan that had no chance of

succe ss? Moreove r, why did the Department give the mother false hopes of reunific ation with her c hild? Even more troubling i s t h e question, why did the Depa

rtment allow a child in its custody to drift i n a sea of uncertainty for almost a y ear and a half, whe n the Depa rtment knew or should have known w ith cer t aint y afte r a matter of we eks that termination wa s the inevitable?
Her e, the e vidence is undispute d t h at the mother ha s essentially no relationship wit h the child. T h e child wa s taken into custody when he was one month old and the child was ne ver returne d to the mother’s c ustody . I n fac t, the child never went home with the mother ; he re mained in the ho sp ita l in c ri tic a l c areun til he wa s we ll e no ug h f or thefo ste r p are nts to t ake him int o th e ir car e. The only

contac t the child had with the mother s i n ce birth were visits at the hospit al during thefi rs t mo nthof

his lif e a nd , th e re a ft e r, the reha ve on ly be e n a f e w v isi tatio ns a t th e priso n, mos t of which w ere separ ated by bars or g lass.
I n s p it e o f a ll th e e v id e n c e th e D e p artm e n t h a d in M ar c h o f 2 0 0 4 , w h e n it to o k c u s to dyof t h e c h i l d , a n d t h e i n f

o r m a t i o n i t h a d o b t a i n e d b y t h e t i m e th e m o t h e r p l e d g u i l t y t o h e r l a t e s tf e l o n y, the Depa rtment waited until Aug ust 30, 2005 to file a petition to terminate her parental rights. To state that th e de la y

wa s n ot i n th e be st i nte re sts of thec hil d, thefo ste r p are nts or themothe r i s a

g ro ss un de rs tate me nt. I nd e e d, thede la y wa s in e xcu sa

blebe c aus e the De pa

rt me nt ha s a n a ff

irmativ e du ty to b e dil ig e nt andto e xpe dit e c a se s, wh e n th e fa c ts j us tif y it, to a ff or d th e c hil d th e e arl ie st opportunity

for pe rmane nt placeme nt. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-166( g )(3) and Te nn. Code Ann.O ur di ss at i sfact i o n wi t h the D ep art m ent ’ s d el ay i n thi s act i o n is no t a ref l ect i o n on co unsel of reco rd. T o t he 9

c o n tra ry, c o u n se l e x p e d ie n tly a n d z e a lo u sly a d v o c a te d fo r the ir re sp e c tive c lien ts, an d w e a p p re c ia te the va lue o f t h e ir
re p re se n ta tio n thr o u g h o u t t h e se a p p e llate p ro c e e d ing s. -8- § 36-1-113( h). Althoug h we find the Depa rtment’s conduct so troubling that such conduc t may be sufficie nt to vacate a termination of a par ent’s rig hts, this i s not such a ca se. 9
The judgme nt of the trial court is a ffirme d, and this matter is r emande d with c osts of appea l a s s e s s e d a g a i n s tt h e D e p art m e n to f C h i l d r e n ’ s S e r v i c e s d u e t o t h e m o t h e r ’ s i n d i g e n c y.

___________________________________ FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR ., J UDGE