### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs N ove m be r 18 2 004
IN TH E MA TTEROF : E. H. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE, DE PA RTM ENT OF CH ILDR EN’ S SE RV ICES
v. KENNET H HARAZ AK
An Appeal f

romthe Juvenile Court for Henry County No. 7285 Hansel J. McAdam s, Jud ge

No. W2004-00514-C OA-R3-P T - F iled Janu ary 26, 2005

This involves the termination of pare ntal rig hts. The child at issue was taken into protec tive custody afte r police r aided the pa

rents’ home and found a n active me thamphetamine lab. Drug char g es we re filed ag ainst the child’s mother and fathe r. The f ather was on pa

role fr om a prior murde r convic tion in I llinois , and his drug -re lated ac tiviti es we re a violation of his parole. As a result, the father wa s returne d to I llinois to serve f urther time in prison on the prior murde r convic tion. The mother’s pare ntal rig hts wer e terminated by default judgment. The fathe r’s pa renta l rig hts were terminated b a s e d o n h a v i n g t h e c h i l d i n t h e h o m e w i t h a m e t h l ab , a n d t h e f a t h e r ’ s r e s u l t i n g i n c a rc e ra tio n in I llinois . The father a

ppeale d, arg uing that the Tenne ssee De partment of Children’ s Services did not make r easona

ble ef forts to reunite him with his child. We affirm, f inding th at under

the circ umstances of

this case, the D epartment of Children’s S er v ices wa s not require d to make
rea sonable e fforts to reunite the father with the c hild.

Rule 3 Appeal; Jud gm ent of the Juvenil e Court is af fi rm ed

H OL L Y M. K I RBY , 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.

Gary J . Sway ne, Paris, Te nnessee , for Responde nt/Appellant Kenne th Hara zak Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter , and Douglas Earl Diamond, Assist ant Attorney Gene ral, Nashville, Tenne ssee, for the Petitioner/Appellee, State of Tenne ssee, Depa rtm en t of Children’s Service s
OP IN ION

On or be fore Aug ust 8, 2002, police conduc ted a ra i d at the home of Sandra H ara zak (“Mother ”) a nd R es p ondent/Appellant Ke nneth Hazar ak (“ Fa ther” ). They found an a ctive-2-

methamphetamine ( “meth”) lab. Present in the home at the time of the raid was Mother and F ather ’s daug hter, E.H., the subject of this appea l. E.H., born Mar ch 20, 1998, wa s four y ear s old at the time. She was re fer

red to Petitio n er/ Appellee the Depa rtment of Children’s Ser vices (“ DCS”), and wa s subsequently

taken into protec tive custody

. DCS lear ned that, in the raid of Mot her’ s and F ather ’s ho me , p oli c e fo un d the ing re die nts fo r makin g me th thr ou g ho ut the ho us e , e a sil y a c c e ssi ble to the ir y oung daug hter. A ta nk of anhy drous ammonia, a c omponent of m eth, was hidden i n the wee ds not fa r f ro m E .H .’ s sw ing se t. Both pa rents have a substantial history of drug involvement and F at h er h as an extensive
c ri min a l hi sto ry

. At the tim e of the po lic e ra id, F a the r wa s on pa ro le fr om a mur de r c on vic tio n in I lli no is. A p er m an en cyp l an wa s d ev el o p ed , i n wh i ch Fa t h er wa s re q u i re d t o at t en d d ru g co u n s el i n g, submit t o ra n dom drug scre ening s, resolve a ny pending leg al proc eeding s ag ainst him, attend pare nting c lass, and attend A lcoholic s Anony mous meeting s. The stated g oal of the pe rmane ncy plan
wa s to re turn E .H . to he r p are nts

. On De c e mbe r 1 6, 20 02 , F a the r p le d g uil ty to m a nu fa c turing me th w ith the int e nt t o s e ll. Since the drug conviction was a violation of his parole on the I llinois murder conviction, Father wa s then t urned over to the I llinois Depa rtment of C orre ctions for further imprisonm ent in I llinois . Prior to this , Fa ther ha d only

a fe w visits with E.H., and completed no re quirements of the perma nency plan.

On J uly

9, 2003, DCS petiti oned for termination of the pa

renta l rig hts of both Mother and Fa ther. The J uvenile Court of He nry C ounty conducte d a hea

ring on the matter on D ece mber 12, 2003. Mother wa s notified of the he aring by telephone a nd by

publication in the local new spaper but did not attend. A default judgment wa s taken a g ainst her. At the time of the hea ring , Fa ther wa s sti ll i nc arc e rate d in I lli no is.

At t h e h earing, the J uvenile Court hea rd testimony

from DCS Child P rotec tive Service s worke r Pam Moss (“Moss”) and DCS case manag er Ela ine Hart (“Ha rt”). B oth Moss and Hart interviewe d E.H. about conditions in the parents’ hom e before the police ra id. E.H. told Moss that she under stood that the police had co m e t o h er home because her mother and he r par ents’ fr iends
we re sm ok in g “b a d s tuf

f. ” She de sc ri be d th e ba d s tuf f a s so me thi ng he r f

a the r h id i n th e wo od s. E.H. said F ather

took the bad stuff, a nd Mother told her it wa s his medicine.

Hart describe d her c onversa tions with E.H. as well. E.H. described helping stir the meth as it w a s c oo kin g

. She sa id the ba d stuf f ma de he r sic k a

lot . A nu mbe r o f “ a un ts” a nd“ un c le s” wo uld visit her home; they would dip ne edles in the bad stuff and g ive themselves shots. E.H. kne w about the buried tank of anhy drous ammonia. She reported seeing her pare nts e ng ag ed in inter course , and
c ou ld d e mon str a te se xua l mo ve me nts

.H ar t t es t i f i ed t hat s he un ders t oo d t hat Fat her t oo k t he bl ame for t he dru g c har ges s o t hat M ot her coul d get 1

c u s t o d y o f

E

. H.
-3- Ha rt t es t i fi ed t h at Fa t h erwa s n o t i fi ed o f a l l s t af f m ee t i n gs an d co u rt h ea ri n gs , an d t h o u gh incar cer ated, c ould have input throug h letters. She said that, bec ause of his incarc eration, Father 1 had not demonstrate d any prog ress on the pe rmane ncy plan.

Fa ther testified at the hearing by telephone f

rom prison in I llinois

. He acknow ledg ed that he had bee n arr ested for

manu fa ct u ri ng meth and, while out on bond, re ceive d a sec ond char g e for po sse ssi on of

me th. F a the r c on c e de d th a t E .H . h a d wi tn ess ed h im i nje c tin g me th i nto his arm

. Fa ther a dmitted that he kept a t an k o f an hy drous ammonia, a c omponent of meth, in the we eds
app ro xima te ly

75 fe e t f ro m E .H .’ s sw ing se t. F a the r d e nie d th a t he a ndMo ther al lo wed E. H. to witness sexual int erc ourse between them but acknowledg ed that E.H. ha d walked in on them onc e.
Fa ther testified tha t he completed a n an ger manag ement prog ram in prison and tha t he attended A lcoholics Anony mous and Nar cotics Anony mous meeting s in prison, both of which w ere objectives unde r the pe rmane ncy plan. Father a lso testified that he wa s certain he co u l d m ee t the g oals and objec tives set out in the permane ncy plan af ter be ing r elea sed fr om prison.

After the hea ring , the J uvenile Court enter ed an or der dated May 17, 2004. I n the orde r, the J uvenile Court found: (1) Fa ther ha d committed severe child ab u s e ag ainst E.H.; (2) F ather manufa cture d meth in the home wher e t h e ch ild lived; (3) Fa ther wa s substantiallynoncompliant with the perma nency

plan; (4) F ather

had failed to reme dy the persistent conditions t hat caused E.H. to be taken f

rom his custody and prevented her safe return t o him at an early date; (5) DCS had made
a re asonable eff

ort to help Father make nece ssary adjustments; a nd (6) that it had be en esta blished by c le ar a nd con vi nci ng e vid e nc e that th e te rm inatio n o f F a the r’ s p are nta l r ig hts wa s in the be st in t e r e s t o f E

. H

. B a s e d o n t h e s e f i n d i n g s , t h e Ju v e n i l e C o u r t t e r m i n a t e d F a t h e r ’ s p ar e n t a l r ig hts

. Fa ther now a

ppeals this order . Mother does not a ppeal the de fault judg ment ag ainst her. On appe al, Father a sserts that DCS did not ex ert reasona ble efforts t o reunite him with E.H.,
e ve n th ou g h M oth e r r e c e ive d th e se se rv ic e s. F a the r m a int a ins that he s ho uldbe g ive n a n o pp ortun ity to achieve the g oals set out in the pare nting plan a fter he is relea sed fr om incarc eration.

Our re view of this ca se is g overne d by T.R.A.P. 13(d), which pr ovides that revi ew of finding s of fac t by the trial court shall be de novo upon the record of the trial court, acc ompanied by a pre sumption of corre ctness of the fac tual finding s, unles s the evidenc e pre ponderates oth e rw ise

. T. R.A .P. 13 (d ); Union C arbide Corp. v. Huddleston , 854 S.W .2d 87, 91 (Tenn. 1993)

.
It i s w e l l s e t t l e d i n T e n n e s s e e t h a t“ p ar e n t s h a v e a f u n d a m e n t a l r i g h tt o t h e c ar e , c u s t o d y, and contr ol of their childre n.” In re Dr inno n, 776 S.W .2d 96, 97 (Tenn. Ct. App.1988) ( citing Sta nle y v . I lli noi s, 405 U.S. 645 (1972)). H oweve r, this rig ht is not absolute and may be ter minated based on c lear

and convinc ing e vidence of one or more of the g rounds set out in Tennesse e Code An no t a t e d § 3 6

- 1

- 1 1 3 ( g )

. I f o n e o f t h e g r o u n d s f o r t e r m i n a t i o n i s s o e s t ab l i s h e d , a nd it i s a lsoSe ct i on 37- 1- 102( 21) ( D ) w as a dded by t h e 2002 a men dmen t e f fec t i v e Ju l y 17, 2002. 2

-4- established by

clea r and c onvincing evident that termination is in the child’s best interest, then the pare ntal rig hts may

be ter minated. Tenn. Code A nn. § 36-1-113( c)( 1) and ( 2) (2001)

.
Fa ther a rg ues on appe al that DCS did not make rea sonable e fforts to reunify him with E.H. Tenne s s ee Code Annotated § 37- 1-166(g )(1) define s “re asonable eff orts” as “ the exercise of
rea sonable c are and diligenc e by the depa rtment to provide ser vices re lated to meeting the nee ds of the child and the family .” Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-166( g )(1) (2001). I n response , DCS asserts, inter ali a , that it was not require d to make re asonable eff orts to reunite Fa t h er with E.H. under the
c ir c ums ta nc e s in thi s c a se . T e nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d § 37 -1 -1 66 (g )( 4) state s th a t:

Reasonable eff

orts of the ty

pe desc ribed in § 37-1-166( g ) shall not be require d to be made with re sp ec t to a pare nt of a c hild if a court of competent jurisdiction has deter mined that . . . [t ]he parent ha s subjected the c hild that is t he subjec t of the petition or any

sibling or ha lf-si b l i n g of the c hild who is the subject of the pe tition or any other c hild residing te mporarily or permanently

in the home to ag g ravated circ umstances a s defined in § 36- 1-102.

Te nn . Co de An n. § 3 7- 1-166 (g )( 4) (2 00 1) . T he te rm “ a g g ra va te d c ir c ums ta nc e s” is d e fi ne d in Tenne s s e e Co d e A n n o tate d § 3 6

- 1

- 1 0 2 to in c lu d e “ s e v e r e c h il d ab u s e a s d e f in e d in § 3 7

- 1

- 1 02.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( g )(4) (2001). Further, Tenne ssee Code Annotated § 37-1-102( 21)(D) define s “seve re c hild abuse” a s “[k] nowing ly allowing a child to be present wit hin a structur e whe re the ac t of cre ating methamphetamine, a s that substance is identified . .

. is oc curring.” T.C.A. § 37- 1-102(21) (D) (Supp. 2004). I t is undisputed that Fa ther pled g uiltyto manufac turing meth in the 2 ho me wh e re he a ndMo the r l ive d w ith E. H. Th e ma nu fa c tur e of me th in E.H .’ s home c le arl y fa lls within definition of severe child abuse found in T ennesse e Code Annota ted § 37-1-102 ( 21)(D) . As such, by statute, DCS was not require d to make re asonable eff orts to reunite E.H. w ith Father

. Under Tenne s s e e Co d e A n notated § 36-1- 113(g )(4) , pare ntal rig hts may be ter minated when: The pa rent or g uardia n has bee n found t o h av e co m mitted severe child abuse a s define d in § 37-1-102, under any p ri o r o rd er of a c ourt or is found by the court hearing the petition to terminate pare ntal rig hts or t he petiti on for a doption to have committed severe child abuse a g ainst the child who is the subject of the petition. . .

T.C.A. § 3 6 -1 -113(g) (4) ( 2001). One g round for termination relied on by

the J uvenile Court was the fa ct that Father ha d committed severe child abuse a g ainst E.H. As noted a bove, the de finition of sever e child abuse specific ally includes allowing the child to be prese nt w here meth is b eing manufa cture d. There fore , g rounds for te rmination of Fat h er ’s pare ntal rig hts were established by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e.-5-

The re cord a lso supports the J uvenile Court’s finding , by clea r and convincing evidenc e, that termination of F ather ’s pare ntal rig hts w as in E .H.’s best interest. There fore , we conclude that the J uvenile Court did not err in terminating Father ’s parental rights. Any other issues ra ised on appe al
are prete rmitted.

Th e de c isi on of

the tr ia l cou rt is af

fi rm e d. Cos ts of the app e a l ar e ta xed to F a the r, Ke nn e th H ar a z a k , o r

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.

__________________________________________ HOLL Y M. KI RBY, JUDGE