R u le 1 0 o f t h e T e n n e sse e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls p ro v id e s: 1

T his C o urt, wit h the c o nc urre nc e o f all jud ge s p arti cip ati ng i n the c ase , m ay aff i rm , rev erse o r mo d i f y t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al co urt by m em o randum o p i ni o n w hen a fo rma l op i ni o n wo ul d have no pre ceden t i al va l ue . W he n a c as e i s deci ded b y memo r andum opi ni on i t s hal l be des i gn at ed

" M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N " , shal l not b e p ub l i shed, and s hal l not b e ci t ed or rel i ed on f o r any r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e. 

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

AT JAC KSON N ove m be r 17, 200 4 S es sio n IN R E: S
. B. D
. W. , a m in or c hi ld b or n, Jan ua ry 14, 199 9
Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Dyer County No. 03A8 J. Steve n Staf ford, Ch ancellor

No. W2004-00863-C OA-R3-P T - F iled Dece m ber 1, 2004

Th e tr ia l c ou rt

te rm inate d p are nts ’ rig hts ba se d o n a ba nd on me nt. F a the r a

pp e a ls. We a ff

ir m.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cha nc e r y C our t A ffirm e d; and Rem anded
D AVI D R. F ARMER , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u r t, in w h ic h W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., and A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J ., joined.
J ason L . Hudson, Dy ersbur g , Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant.
W. L ewis Jenkins, J r., Dy ersbur g , Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellees.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1
This is a te r mi n a ti o n o f p ar e n ta l r ig h ts c a s e
. I n M ar c h 2 0 0 1 , th e Ju v e n il e Co u r t of Dy er Countyawa

rded c ustody

of S.B.D.W., a minor child born January 1999, to P.B., Appellant/F ather ’s st ep-s is ter , an d aw arde d M ot her r e a so nab le v is it ati on . I n M arch 20 03 , K. W ., R. W ., and P .B. (collec tively , Petitioners) filed a pe tition t o terminate the pare ntal rig hts of F ather and Mother a nd fo r a do pti on of

S.B .D .W. by

K. W. a ndR.W. Th e tr ia l c ou rt te rm inated pare nta l r ig hts of bo thM o t her has not ap p eal ed t he t ri al co urt ’ s d et erm i nat i o n. 2
-2- pare nts based on aba ndonment and granted the pe tition for adoption. Fathe r filed a timely appea l to this Cou rt

. 2
Issues Presented
On app e a l, F a the r c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l cou rt e rr e d in det e rm ini ng Pe tit ion e rs sa tis fi e d th e ir b u r d e n o f p r o o f a n d in f in d in g th a t F a th e r

ab a n d o n e d S. B

. D

. W.
Sta nda rd of Re v ie w
Ou r s ta nd ardof

re vie w o f a

tr ia l c ou rt

si tti ng wi tho ut a

jury is de novo upon the re cord. W rig ht v
. City of

Kn ox v ill e , 898 S.W .2d 177, 181 (Tenn. 1995) . We presume the trial court’s finding s of fact to be cor

rec t unless the evidenc e pre ponderates otherwise . Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). Howeve r, no pre sumption of corre ctness attaches to a tria l court’s c onclusions on issues of law. Bo wde n v . W

ar d , 275 S.W .3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000) ; Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d).
Tenne ssee Code A nnotated § 36-1- 113 g overns the termination of par ental rig hts. The code pr ov ide s, in p e rt ine nt p art :

(c ) T e rm inatio n o f p are nta l or g ua rd ia ns hip ri g hts mus t be ba se d u po n: (1) A f inding by the court by

clea r and convincing evidenc e that the g rounds for termination or pare ntal or g uardia nship rights ha ve bee n established; and (2 ) T ha t te rm inatio n o f the pa re nt' s or g ua

rd ia n' s rig hts is in the be st i nte re sts of the c hild.
Tenn. Code A n n
. § 36-1-113( c)( 2001). This section also provide s the g rounds on which pa renta l ri g hts ma y

be te rm inate d. Th e e xiste nc e of a ny statut ory ba sis fo r te rm inatio n of pa re nta l r ig hts wi ll support the trial court’s decision to terminate those rig hts. I n r e C

. W. W. , N

. W. W. , Z

. W. W. , & A

. L

. W. , 37 S.W .3d 467, 473 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
A court’s determination to terminate pare ntal rig hts must be supported by clea r and convincing evidenc e. Id. at 474. The “ clea r and c on v i n ci n g evidenc e” sta ndard is more exacting tha n the "p repo nd e ra nc e of the e vid e nc e " sta nd ard , a lth ou g h it do e s n ot d e ma ndthe c e rt a int y require d by

the " bey ond a re asonable doubt" standa rd. Id. To be c lear

and convinc ing, the evidenc e mus t e lim inate a ny

su bs ta nti a l do ub t a ndpr od uc e in the fa c t- fi nd e r' s mi nda fi rm c on vic tio n a s to the truth. Id. I ns of

ar a s th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s de te rm inatio ns are ba se d o n it s ass essm e nt o f w itn e ss cre dibilit y , this Court will not ree valuate that assessment absent evidenc e of clear and convinc ing evidenc e to the contr ary
. Se e W e lls v
. Te nn e sse e Bd

. o f R e ge nts , 9 S.W .3d 779, 783 (Tenn.1999)

.-3-

The trial c ourt found as g rounds for te rminating Father’s pa renta l rig hts that Fathe r had abandone d S.B.D.W. under Te nn. Code Ann. sec tion 36-1-113(g )(1) . The Te nnessee Code define s aba nd on me nt a s: (1)( A) " Abandonment" means, for purposes of terminating the par ental or g uardia n ri g hts of pa re nt( s) or g ua rd ia n( s) of a c hil d to that c hil d in or de r t o ma ke that c hil d
a va ila ble fo r a do pti on , th a t: (I ) F o r a period of four ( 4) conse cutive months immediately prec eding the filing of a proc eeding or plea ding to terminate the par ental rig hts of the par ent(s) or g uardia n(s) of the child who is the subject of the petition f or termination of par ental ri g hts or a do pti on , th a t th e pa

re nt( s) or g ua

rd ia n( s) e ith e r h a ve wi llf

ull y faile d to vis it
or ha ve wi llf

ull y faile d to su pp ort or

ha ve wi llfull y faile d to make re a so na ble pay ments toward the support of the child; (i i) Th e c hil d h a s b e e n r e mov e d f ro m th e ho me of

the pa re nt( s) or g ua rd ia n( s)
a s th e re su lt o f a pe tit ion fi le d in the juv e nil e c ou rt in wh ic h the c hil d wa s fou ndto be a de pendent a nd neg lected c hild, as defined i n § 37-1-102, a nd the child was place d in the custody of t he department or a li cense d child-plac ing ag ency , that the juv e nil e c ou rt

fo un d, or the c ou rt wh e re the te rm inatio n o f p are nta l rig hts pe tit ion is fi le d fi nd s, that the de pa

rt me nt o r a

lic e ns e d c hil d- pla c ing a g e nc y ma de re a so na

ble efforts to preve nt removal of the child or that the c ircumstance s of the child 's situa tio n p re ve nte d r e a so na ble e ff orts f ro m be ing ma de prior

to the c hil d' s r e mov a l; and for a period of four (4) m onths following the removal, the department or ag ency has made rea sonable e fforts to assist t he par ent(s) or g uardi an (s ) to establish a suitable home for

the child, but that the pa rent(s) or g uardia n(s) ha ve made no rea sonable e fforts to provide a suitabl e h o m e an d have de monstrated a la ck of
c on c e rn fo r the c hil d to suc h a deg re e that it app e ars un lik e ly

that th e y wi ll b e able to provide a suitable home for the c hild at an ea rly date; (i ii) A b iol og ic a l or leg a l fa the r ha s eithe r wil lf ull y faile d to vis it o r w ill fu lly failed to make rea sonable pay ments toward the support of the c hild's mother during the four ( 4) months immediately prec eding the birth of the
c hil d; p ro vid e d, that in no ins ta nc e sh a ll a fin a l ord e r te rm inatin g the pa re nta l r ig hts of a parent as de te rm ine d p ur su a nt t o th is s ub div isi on (i ii) be e nte re d u nti l a t le a st thirty (30) day s have e lapsed since the date of the child' s birth; (iv) A pa rent or g uardia n is incarc erated at t h e t i m e of the instit ution of an action or pr ocee ding to de clar e a ch i l d t o be an a bandoned c hild, or the pare nt or g ua rd ia n h a s b e e n in c arc e rate d d uring a ll or pa rt of the fo ur

(4 ) m on ths imm e diate ly prec eding the institut ion of such action or proceeding , and either has willfully failed to v isi t or ha s w ill fu lly

fai le d to su pp ort or

ha s w ill fu lly

faile d to make re a so na

ble pay ments toward the support of t h e child for four ( 4) conse cutive months immediately

prec eding such par ent' s or g u ar d ian' s incarc eration, or the pare nt or g uard ia n h a s e n g a g e d in c o n d u c t p r io r to in c ar c e r a ti o n w h ic h e xh ib it s a w a nton disreg ard f

or the we lfare of the c hild; or-4- (v) The child, as a ne wborn infa nt ag ed seventy -two (72) hours or less, wa s voluntarily

left at a fac ility by

such infant' s mother pursuant to § 68-11- 255; and, for
a pe ri od of thi rt y (3 0) da y s a ft e r the date of vo lun tary

de liv e ry , th e mothe r f

a ile d to visit or seek conta ct with the infant; and, f or a pe riod of thirty (30) day s afte r notice was g iven under

§ 36-1-142( e), and no less than ni nety (90) day s cumulatively , the mother failed to se ek contac t w ith the inf ant throug h the depa

rtment or to re voke her vo lun tary de liv e ry of the inf a nt. (B ) F or purpose s of this subdivis i o n (1 ), "token support" means that the support, under the circ umstances of the individua l case, is insignifica nt give n the pa re nt' s me a ns ; (C) F or purpose s of this subdivis ion (1), " token visitation" mea ns that the visitation, under the circ umstances of the individual c ase, constitutes nothing more than per functory

visitation or visi tation of such an infreque nt nature or of such short duration as to mer ely

establish minimal or insubst antial contac t with the child; (D) F or purpose s of this subdivis ion (1), " willfullyfailed to s u p p o rt " or "w illf u ll y f ailed to make r easona

ble payments toward suc h child' s support" me ans the willful failure, f

or a pe riod of four

(4) c onsecutive months, to provide moneta ry support or t he will ful failure to provide more than t oken pay ments toward the support of the c hil d; (E) For purposes of t his subdivision (1), "willfully failed to visit" means the willful failure, f

or a pe riod of four

(4) c onsecutive months, to visit or eng ag e in more than token visitation; (F ) Aba ndonment may

not be re pented of

by resuming visitation or support subsequent to the filing of any petition seeking to terminate pa renta l or g uardia nship rights or se eking the adoption of a child; and (G) " Abandonment" and " abandonme nt of an infant" do not ha ve any other definition except that which is se t f orth in this section, it be ing the i n t en t o f t he g ener al assembly

to establish the only

g rounds for a

bando n m ent bystatutory definition. Specifica lly , it shall not b e require d that a par ent be shown to ha ve evince d a settled purpose to fore g o all pare ntal rig hts and responsibili ties in order f or a dete rmination of aba ndonment to be made. D ecisions of a ny court to the contra ry are here by

leg islatively

overr uled; Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-102(1) (Supp. 2004).
At the time of the he aring , Father wa s incarc erated but participa ted i n t h e m at ter by deposit io n a n d w a s r e p r e s e n te d b y c o u n s e l. T h e tria l c o u r t f o u n d th a t f

o r a p e r io d o f g r e a te r th an four months prior to his incar cer ation Father willfully had fa iled to visit or support S.B.D.W. The trial court further f

ound that “no per son has deprived [Father ] of visi tation with his child, nor kept him from seeing the child or exercising visitation with his c hild.” The c ourt additionally determined that termination of F ather ’s par ental rig hts was in the best intere sts of S

. B. D. W

. The trial c ourt terminated Mother

and F ather ’s par ental rig hts and gra nted K.W

. and R.W.’s petition for adoption.-5-

Father doe s not deny

that he fa iled to visit or support S.B.D.W. for at least four months prior to his incarce ration, but contends his failure to do so was not willful. Father a sserts that P.B., who had leg a l c u s to d y o f S. B

. D

. W. , r e f u s e d to a ll o w h im o n to h e r p r o p e r ty , w ith th e e xc e p ti o n of one visit, and refuse d to permit him to t ake the child. Father testified that he spoke to S.B.D.W. on the telephone se vera l times while S.B.D.W. was visiting w ith Mother. Petitioners, on the other ha nd,
assert Fathe r has ha d almost no contact with S.B.D.W. pra ctically since he r bi rth. They

assert Fathe r made only

one attempt to visit S .B.D .W. at P .B.’ s home i n Dec ember 2002. P.B. testified that she was fe arf ul of allowing Father, who w as co- habitating with his ex -wife ’s much y oung er daug hter,
w h o m h e h a d r a is e d f

r o m th e a g e o f

f iv e , to ta k e S. B

. D

. W. a w a y

f r o m h e r h o me u nsupervised. Petitioners assert F ather

was not pre vented f

rom visi t i n g S.B.D.W. at P.B.’s home. T hey further submit t hat Father ne ver c alled to see S.B.D.W. or t o inquire about he r, neve r supported the child, and fa iled to send her e ven a sing le piece of mail. Having revie wed the e nti re recor d in this case, we find clea r and c onvincing evidenc e supports the judg ment of the trial c ourt. The r ecor d establishes that F ather h as b een inc arc erated freq uen tl y

and th at, befo re goi ng to li ve wit h K.W . and R. W ., S .B.D .W . had been in th e care o f P .B. almost since birth. Father’s deposition te stimony establishes that Father made no attempt to support S.B .D .W. a nd , w ith the e xce pti on of on e ha lf -h ou r v isi t in De c e mbe r 2 00 2, ma de no a tte mpt to v isi t her. Although Father contends that P.B. stated that he was not welcome on he r prope rty , Father doe s not assert that he attempted to visit S .B.D .W. and was denie d the opportunity

. The trial c ourt furthe r found that termination of Fa ther’s pa renta l rig hts and adopti on of S.B.D.W. by K

. W. a n d R. W. ar e in th e b e s t in te r e s t o f S. B

. D

. W. F a th e r d o e s n o t s u b mi t th a t the trial court e rre d in this determination a nd, having revie wed the rec ord, we a g ree that termination of Father’s pa

renta l rig hts is in S .B.D .W.’s best interest. We acc ording ly aff irm termination of F ather ’s pare ntal rig hts based on abandonment as define d by Tenn. Code Ann. Sec tion 36-1-102(1)( A)(iv)

. Holdin g
I n li g ht o f t

he fo re g oin g , w e a ff

ir m te rm inatio n o f F a the r’ s p are nta l r ig hts to S .B .D .W. Cos t o f t h i s ap p e a l ar e t a x e d t o t h e A p p e l l a n t , a n d h i s s u r e t y, f o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o n m a y i s s u e i f n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ DAVID R. FARMER, J UDGE