R u l e 1 0 o f t h e R u l es o f t h e C o u rt o f A p p ea l s o f T en n esse e p ro v i d es: 1

T h i s C o u rt, w i t h t h e c o n cu rren ce o f a l l ju d g es p arti cip ati n g in th e c ase , m ay affirm , rev erse or m odi fy t he ac t i ons of t he t r i al c our t by m em or andum opi ni on w hen a f or m al opi ni on w oul d ha ve no pre cedent i al val ue. W hen a ca se i s deci ded b y m em orandum opi ni on i t s hal l be des i gn at ed “M EM O RA N D U M O PI N I O N ”, s h al l n o t b e publ i s hed, a nd s hal l not be c i t ed or r el i ed on f or a ny r eas on i n any unrel at ed cas e. 

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

AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d O n B ri ef

s Ju ly 3 1, 200 9 IN RE ADOPTI ON OF: J .B.H. Direc t Appeal fromthe Chancer y Court for DyerCounty No. 08A1 Tony A. Child ress, Chancellor

No. W2009-00228-C OA-R3-P T - Filed Augu st 11, 2009 Respondent/Appellant appe als the trial cour t’s termi n at i o n of her

pare ntal rig hts based on a ba nd onme nt. We a ff

ir m. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Righ t; Judg me nt of th e Cha nc e r y C our t A ff ir me d; and Rem anded D AVI D R. F ARMER , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which H OL LY M. K I RBY , J., joined. J. Steven Stafford, J., not pa rticipating. Vane dd a Princ e W e bb , D ye rs bu rg , T e nn e sse e , f or theAp pe llant. Thomas E. We akley, Dye rsburg, Te nnessee , for the Appellee.

M EM ORAN DU M OP IN ION 1 This is a termination of par ental rights and adoption ca se. On January 4, 2008, Petitioner/Appellee ( “Petitioner”) filed a pe tition for adoption in the Chancer y Court for Dyer County . In h e r p e tit ion , s he pr ay e d f or te rm inatio n o f t

he pa re nta l r ights of

the bio log ic a l pa

re nts of JBH, born De cembe r 12, 1999, and f or the c ourt to permit her to a dopt J BH . Petitioner alleg ed that she w as JBH’s great aunt, that she had phy sical custody of JBH, and that she be enI t i s und i s pu t ed t hat Pet i t i on er had ph ysi cal cus t od y of J B H s i nce he w as s i x m on t hs of a ge. 2

The t r i al c our t f ound t hat , a l t hough M ot her ha d not s uppor t ed J BH fi nanc i al l y, he r f ai l ur e t o s uppor t w as not 3

w ill fu l w h e re th e N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 2 o rd e r g ra n tin g c u sto d y to P e tit io n e r sta te d “n o c h ild su p p o rt is o rd e re d .” -2- awa rded le g al custody

of JBH pursuant to an or der e ntere d by the trial cour

t in November 2002. 2 She further

asser ted that J BH ’s biologic al par ents joined in the petition for the purpose of g iving their conse nt to the adoption pursuant to Tenne ssee Code Annotated § 36-1- 117(f) . Petitioner prayed in the alter

native that, in the eve nt the biologica l pare nts did not j oin the petition and consent to the a doption, that the court find it in J BH ’s best intere st that the adoption be appr oved. She alleg ed that, since entry of the orde r grantingher c ustody of JBH was e ntere d in 2002, J BH ’s bio log ic a l pa

re nts ha d n e ith e r v isi te d n or su pp or te d JB H, and

that it wa s in JBH ’s be st i nte re st that their par ental rights be terminated. F oll ow inga

he ari ngon

Marc h 3 1, 20 08 , o n Apr il 7 , 2 00 8, the tr ia l c ourt e nte re d a de fa ult judgme nt terminatingthe par ental rights of J BH ’s biologic al father. The trial court f ound that JBH ’s bio log ic a l mo the r ( “ Mo the r” ) i nte nd e d to c onte st the pe tit ion and or de re d a ho me stu dy

to be conduc ted pursuant to the statutory require ments. The trial c ourt appointed a guardia n ad litem on J uly

8, 2008, and continued the matter pe nding Mothe r’s re lease from inca rce ration. The trial c ourt appointed c ounsel for Mother on October

6. On Octobe r 10, 2008, Mother a nswere d the petition, denying grounds exist ed for the termination of her

pare ntal rig hts and that it was in J BH ’s best intere st for her rig hts to be terminated. She f

urther a sserted that Petiti oner ha d acte d with “unclea n hands” where she had preve nted Mother f

rom exercisingvisitation or maintaining conta ct with J BH . She prayed that the petition be dismissed. Followinga hea

ringon Dec ember

10, 2008, the trial cour

t terminated Mother ’s par ental ri g hts ba se d o n a

ba nd onme nt f

or fa ilure to v isi t f

or at le a st f our m onths pr e c e din gthe pe tit ion to terminate he r par ental rights. In its J anuar y 9, 2009, order , the trial cour t found Mother’s 3 tes ti mo ny th at P eti ti on er an d h er hu sb andhadprev ent ed h er fro m ex erci si ng vi si tat io n wi th J BH to be unper suasive. The trial court f ound Petitioner’s testimony reg ardingMother’s a lleg ations to be “ve ry

persua sive.” The trial court f ound by clea r and c onvincingevidenc e that Mother ha d willfully failed to visit J BHfor the f our months prec edingthe filingof the January 8, 2008, petition, and further

found that she “ did not visi t with the child for year s at a time.” The trial c ourt a lso fo un d, by

c le ar a nd c onvin c inge vid e nc e , th at te rm inatio n o f M oth e r’ s p are nta l r ights was in JBH’s best intere st. The trial cour t acc ording ly

terminated Mother ’s par ental rights and g rante d the petition for adoption. The trial court e ntere d a fina l order of adoption on J anuar

y 23, 20 09 . M oth e r f

ile d a tim e ly no tic e of a pp e a l to thi s Co ur

t.-3- Issue Presented Mo the r h a s f

a ile d to inc lud e a

state me nt o f t

he iss ue s r a ise d f

or re vie w i n h e r b ri e f t o th is Co urt . M other argues , h owe ver, th at t he t ri al c ourterredby fi nd in g thather f

ail ure t o v is itJ BH wa s w ill fu l. Stan dard of Revie w We r e vie w the tr ia l c ourt ’s fi nd ing s o f f a c t de novo upon the re cord w ith a presumption of c or re c tne ss. Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 3( d) . We wi ll n ot r e ve rs e the tr ia l c ourt ’s fa c tua l f ind ing s unle ss they are contra

ry to the preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. Berryhill v. Rhode s , 21 S.W .3d 188, 190 (Tenn. 2000) . To preponde rate ag ainst a trial cour t’s findingof fa ct, the evide nce must support another findingof fa ct with g reater c onvincingevidenc e . M os le yv . M c Can le ss , 207 S.W .3d 247, 251 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). I f the trial c ourt’s fa ctual dete rminations are based on its assessment of witness cr edibility , this Court wil l not reeva luate that asse ssment absent cle ar a nd convincing evidenc e to the contr ary . J on es v . G arre tt , 92 S.W .3d 835, 838 (Tenn. 2002) . We reviewthe tr ia l c ourt ’s de te rm inatio ns on qu e sti on s o f l aw a

nd its a pp lic atio n o f l aw t o th e fa c ts de novo , ho we ve r, wi th n o p re sumpt ion of c or re c tne ss . B owd

e n v . W ar d , 27 S.W .3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000). Discussion The only question prese nted by

this case is whe ther Mother ’s fa ilure to visit J BHfor at least four months prior to the date Petitioner filed he r petition for a doption in the chance ry court wa s w ill fu l. U

po n r e vie w o f t

he re c or d a

nd the or de r e nte re d in

thi s matte r, it i s c le ar t o th is Court that the trial court’ s determination wa s based on its assessment of w itness cre dibilit y wher e it found Mother to be unpe rsuasive a nd Petitioner to be “ve ry

persua sive.” F urther, the trial court’s or der r efle cts that it considere d the cr edibility of all the witnesse s in this case. The tr ial court stated, “ [a] lthough the [c]ourt has made a decision to specif

ically list som e of the testimony and oth e r e vid e nc e in t

his po rt ion

of thi s o rd e r, the [c]o ur

t di d c on sid e r a ll a

pp lic a ble e vid e nc e in re a c hin gthe fi nd ing s o f f a c t and c on c lus ion s o f l aw c onta ine d in thi s p or tio n o f t he or de r. ” Thus , the tr ia l c ourt

a sse sse d th e e nti re ty

of the te sti mony

of fe re d a nd fo un d Pe tit ion e r’ s te sti mony to be cr edible. The re is no cle ar a nd convincingevidenc e in this recor d to contradic t the trial court’s a ssessment. Mother does not a ssert in her brief to this Court that termination of her pa re nta l r ights is n ot i n JB H’ s b e st i nte re st, and the re is n o e vid e nc e in t

his re c or d th at w ou ld preponde rate ag ainst the trial cour t’s finding s on this is sue. We ac cording ly aff irm the trial court’s judgment.-4- Hol din g In light of the fore g oing, the judgme nt of the trial cour t is affirmed. Costs of this appea l are taxed to t he Ap pe lla

nt.

___________________________________ DAVI D R. FARMER , JUDGE