T en n. R

. C t

. A p p . 1 0 st ates: 1

T h is C o u rt, w ith the c o n c u rr e n c e o f all ju d g e s p a rtic ip a ting in the c a se , m a y a ff irm , re v e rs e o r m o d ify t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al co urt by me m o randum op i ni o n when a fo rma l op i ni o n w o u ld h ave no prec edent i a l v a l u e . W h e n a c a s e i s de c i de d b y me mo r a n du m o pi n i on i t s h a l l be de s i g n at ed “M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N ,” s h a ll no t be pub 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 NAS HVILLE Se pte m be r 9, 200 4 S es sio n IN TH E MA TTEROF : J.J. S. , O .J. S. , A .L. S. , A ND C. M. S. Appeal f romthe Juvenile Court for Cannon County No. 1037 Susan Melt on, Jud ge

No. M2003- 02243-COA-R 3-P T - F iled Septem ber 17, 2004

Be causeof questions reg arding the t rial court’s denial of a ppointed counsel in this proce eding that resulted in the termination of pare ntal rig hts, the Depa rtment of Children’s Servic es has acknow ledg ed that the tria l court’s judg ment must be vacated. We ag ree .

Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Juvenile Court Vacat ed and Rem anded P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S., and F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J ., joined. Jane t D . Po we ll; M. Ke ithSiskin, Mu rf re e sb or o, Te nn e sse e , f

or theapp e llants , J.S. a ndM. S. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter , Doug las Earl Dimond, Senior Counsel, for the app e lle e , St a te of

Te nn e sse e , D e pa

rtme nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s. M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1 On Dec ember

19, 2000, the Depa

rtment of Children’s Services (D CS) petitioned for te r mi n a ti o n o f th e p ar e n tal r ig h ts o f M o th e r a n d F a th e r to th e ir f o u r c h il d r e n w h o h a dbeen in the custody of DCS since January

of 2000. The pe tition was h ea rd Aug ust 27, 2003, and the court enter ed an or der te rminating Mother’s and Father’s pa renta l rig hts.-2-

On appeal, both pare nts r aised the denial of appointed counsel to r epre sent t h em i n the termination proce eding s. DCS, through the O fficeof the Attorne y Gene ral, ha s ag ree d that the trial court’s or der terminating the par ental rig hts of Mother and F ather must be vacated bec ause the rec ord does not demonstrate compliance with Tenn. R. J uv. P. 39 or Tenn. R. S. Ct. 13. Although this c ase was consolidated, for purposes of arg ument and dispositi on, with Appeal No. M 2003-01670-COA- R3-CV, involving the same parents’ appeal of a circuit court orde r finding thec hil dr e n d e pe nd e nt andne g le c te d, thepo sit ion s o f the pa rtie s h a ve re so lv ed this a pp e a l. There fore , the purposes serve d by the consoli dation no longer apply , and the order of consolidation i s v ac at ed

. T h e ap p ea l o f t h e d ep en d en cyan dn egl ec to rd erre m ai n s p en d i n g. Acc ording ly , the trial court’s order of Aug us t 2 8 , 2 0 0 4 , terminating the par ental rig hts of Mother and F ather

is vacated. The c ase is r em an d ed t o t h e trial court f or a ne w trial af

ter adjudication of the pare nt’s rig ht to appointed counsel in complianc e with applica ble law. Cos ts o n a

pp e a l areta xedto the app e lle e , th e De pa rtme nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s.

___________________________________ PATRI CI A J . COTTRELL , J UDGE