### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON O ct obe r 12, 200 4 S es sio n ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E, D EP A R TM EN T O F C HI LD R EN 'S S ER V IC ES v. TAMMY ROBBI NS
A Dire ct A ppeal f

romthe Juvenile Court for Weakley County No. C1149 The Honorable Jam es H. Bradberry, Judge

No. W2004-00487-C OA-R3-P T - F iled Novem ber 18, 2004

This is a termination of par ental rig hts case. T ammy Robbins (“Ms. Robbins”) appea ls from t h e o r d e r o f t h e J u v e n i l e C o u r to f

W e ak l e y C o u n t y t e r m i n a t i n g h e r p ar e n t a l r i g h t s
. S p e c i f

i c a l l y, Robbins asserts that the trial court erre d the following five respe cts: in a dmitti ng the testimony of a ce rtain expert witness; in disreg arding the testimony of another expert witness; in disreg arding the te sti mon y of Rob bin s’ s f

a c t w itn e sse s; i n r e fu sin g to o bs e rve Robb ins wi th h e r c hil dr e n; andin considering , in the termination proce eding , evidenc e of the State’s ea rlier r emovals of the c hildren fr om R ob bin s’ s c us tod y . B e c aus e we fi ndapp e lla nt’ s a sse rt ion s to be wi tho ut m e ri t, w e a ff ir m.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Juvenile Court Affi rm ed
W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D R. F ARMER , J . and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., joined.
Wil liam R. Neese of

Dre sden for

Appellant, Ta mmy

Robbins Paul G. Summers, Attorney General a nd Reporter ; Michael E. Moore , Solicitor Genera l; Michael G. Schweg ler , As s istant Attorney Gene ral for

Appellee , State of Tenne ssee, De partment of Children' s ServicesT h e c h ild re n ’s fa the r is J o h n M c A lister . M r. M c A lister ’s p a re n ta l righ ts w e re ter m ina te d in a se p a ra te 1 p ro c e e d ing , an d he is no t a p a rty to this a p p e a l. -2- OP IN ION
I. F AC TS
Ms . R ob bi ns is th e mo th er of tw o m in or ch il dren at i ss ue i n t hi s ca s e , B.L .M . (D .O. B. 06 /25 /19 95 ) andK. A. M. (D .O .B . 0 2/2 7/19 96 ). Th e re c or d o n a pp e a l sh ow s th a t bo th o f M s. 1 Rob bin s’ c hil dr e n ha ve su ff e re d th e c on se qu e nc e s o f the ir mothe r’ s tu mul tuo us lif

e fr om the ir

e arl y i n f a n c y. T h e s t a t e h a s o v e r s e e n m u l t i p l e r e m o v a l s o f t h e c h i l d r e n , b o t h v o l u n t ar y a n d i n v o l u n t ar y, from the custody of Ms. Robbins and her family . Whil e it is not necessa ry to examine the fac ts of eac h of th e r e mo v a ls in d e tail , a b r ie f s u mm ar y o f e a c h r e mo v a l w il l h e lp to il lu strate the circ umstances in which B .L .M. and K.A.M. ha ve bee n raised.
F ro m O c tob e r 9 , 1 99 5 u nti l O c tob e r 1 1, 19 95 , M s. Rob bin s v olu nta ri ly pla c e d B.L.M. in foster car e while she “pulled her self tog ether ” af ter a n arg ument with Mr. McAlister, the c hildren’s fathe r.
F ro m D e c e mbe r, 19 95 , to Janu ary 30 , 19 96, B .L .M . w a s in vo lun tari ly re mov e d f

ro m Ms

. Robbins’ cu s t o d y d ue to Ms. Robbins’ failure to ke ep B .L .M. connec ted to an apne a monitor pursuant to the orders of his phy sician, and de spite repe ated plea s from De partment of H uman Service s case worke rs. The c asew orker ’s notes fr om this episode, admitted into evidence, a lso show that Ms . Ro bb ins a dmi nis te re d CPRto B .L .M

. wh ile he wa s br e a thi ng a nd g a ve B aby Ty le no l to h im while he wa s not running a feve r.
Fr om J anuary

30, 1996 until som etime in May 1996, B.L .M. was involuntarily remove d from Ms. Rob bin s’ c us tod y

a ndpla c e d in th e care of Ms. Rob bin s’ mothe r, Shi rl e y Tatum , d ue to M s. Rob bin s’ pr e g na nc y

wi th h e r d aug hte r K .A .M ., a nd du e to Ms. Rob bin s’ ina bil ity to c are fo r b oth K.A.M. and B .L .M. after

K.A.M.’s birth.
Ms. Robbins vol untarily

place d both children in state c ustody from May

24, 1996 until May 29, 1996. Fr om Aug ust or September 1996 until Dec ember 1 9 96, Ms. Robbins gave custody of K.A.M. to Ang ie and Jerry Gibson. Then, fr om J anuary 2 4 , 1 9 9 7 until J une 2, 1998, B .L .M. and K.A. M

. we re involunt arily remove d from Ms. Robbins’ custody , afte r DCS employ ees w itnessed Tammy threatening B.L .M. and shaking K.A.M., who wa s still an infa nt at the time.
B.L .M

. a n d K

. A

. M

. th e n li v e d w ith M s
. Ro b b in s o r h e r im me d iate f a mi ly u n ti l M ay25, 2000, when her mother and sister-in-law contac ted DCS a nd notified it that they could no longe r ca re for the c hildren. Pursuant to this request, the state re moved the childre n from Ms. Robbins’ custody until August 13, 2001—the fourth involuntary remova l for B .L .M., and the sec ond for K.A .M..-3-

I n Aug ust 2001, the children’ s father , J ohn McAlister, took custody of the c hildren and a

“nocontac t” orde r wa s entere d prohibiting Ms. Robbins from contac ting or attempting to co n t ac t the children. The children r emained w ith the father until April 31, 2003, whe n he informed the DCS he c ou ld no lon g e r take c are of the c hil dr e n du e to h is dru g abu se , h ome le ssn e ss, a ndmari ta l pr ob le ms. The de partment re g ained c ustody of the c hildren on May 1, 2003. On J une 13, 2003, the St ate of Te nn e sse e De pa

rt me nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s f ile d a pe tit ionto te rm inate the pa re nta l r ig hts of

Ms. Robbins, alleging that her pa renta l rig hts should b e t erminated on the g rounds of de pendenc e, neg lect, emotional, phy sical, and se x ual abuse . On J anuary 22, 2004, the court entere d a judg ment t e r m i n a t i n g M s
. R o b b i n s ’ p ar e n t a l r i g h t s a s t o B

. L

. M

. a n d K

. A

. M

. . T h e o r d e r r e a d s , i n i t s e n t i r e t y, a s f oll ow s: This cause came to [ be] heard on the 20 d ay of Nove mber, th 2003, b ef

o re the Honorable J ames H. B radbe rry , J udg e of the J uvenil e C ourt of Weakley County , Tenne ssee, upon the sw orn Petition To Terminate P are ntal Rights fil ed bythe State of Te nnessee , Depa rtment of Children’s Ser vices, with all part i es properly befor e the Court on service of process. Present were repre sentatives of the State of Tenne ssee, De partment of Children’s Service s, and Assistant G e n e r a l C o u n s e l , S t e p h a n i e J

. H a l e , T a m m y R o b b i n s , h e r a t t o r n e y, W i l l i a mR

. N e e s e , a n d t h e G u ar d i a n A d L i t e m , D o n a l d L

. R uis

. Upon proof introduc ed at the hearing, statements of counse l, the rec ommendation of the Guar dian Ad L item, D onald L . Ruis, and the entire r ecor d, the Court finds upon clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that the Petiti o n To Terminate Pare ntal Rights filed by the State of Te nn e sse e , D e pa

rt me nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s, is wel l take n a s to Respondent, Tammy

Robbins, and should be sustained and relief g rante d there under f

or the c auses ther ein stated:
1. That the c hildren have been in the c u s t o d y of the Depa rtment since May

1, 2003, and plac ed in a Depa rtment foster home

. 2. The children have previously been in f oster ca re a s follows: [ B.L .M.] was in custody from Oc t o b er 9, 19 95 to O c tob e r 1 1, 19 95 ; D e c e mber 2 0, 19 95 un til J anuar y 30, 1996; both chil d re n wer e in custody vo lun tari ly

fr om M a y 24 , 199 6 to May 29 , 1 99 6; b oth children w ere remove d for their s af et yfrom January 24 , 1 99 7 u nti l June 2, 19 98 and May 25, 2 00 0 u nti l Aug ust 13, 2001. These we re r emoval s from the mother.-4- 3. Th a tb y

O r d e r o f t h e W e ak l e y

C o u n t y Ju v e n i le Cou rt on Au g us t 13 , 2 00 1, the c hil dr e n w e re pla c e d in the custody of their fathe r and a no contac t or der w as enter ed as to the mother who has had no contact upon rec ommendation of the menta l health provider s since October of 2000 as to [B.L .M.] and F ebrua ry of 2001 as to [K.A.M.]

. The children wer e at that time placed with their fathe r, John M cAlister.
4. There wa s a continued pla n for c ontact with the ma te rn a l si de of

the famil y

a s th e c hil dr e n w e re to have f am i l y co u n s eli ng with their materna l g rand mothe r andthe n th e ir mothe r i f a ll w e nt w e ll.
5. That John M cAlister c ontacted the Depa rtment and state d h e wa s un able to c are fo r the c hil dr e n d ue to drug usag e, homelessne ss, and as he w as suicidal and they have be en in custody

since May

1, 2003. 6. That upon t he expert testimony of the ps y c ho log ical e xami ne r, Dr . Ch arl e s V iar, Ms. Robbins, has a persona litydisorder and other menta l health conc erns a nd i s p resently unable to par ent the children althoug h finds her a ppropriate for visitation. He fu rthe r t e sti fi e d th a t it wa s u nli ke ly that Ms

. Robbins is mentally competent to pare nt the childre n a ndwo uldre qu ir e lon g -t e rm tre a tme nt. B e th Shanklin, MS , who had counsele d Ms. Robbins i n the past conc urre d with that it is highly unlikely that she is able to curr ently

pare nt the children.
7. There fore , the Court finds by clea r and c onvincing e vid e nc e that Ms . Ro bb ins is i nc omp e tent to adequately

provide for

the further

car e and s u p e r v is io n o f

th e c h il d r e n b e c au s e h e r me ntal condition is presently

so impaired and is unlikely [si c] to r e ma in s o th a t it

is unl ike ly tha

t she wi ll be able to resume c are of or r esponsibilityfor the children in the near future and t hat, as set forth below, upon clea r and c on vin c ing e viden ce that te rm inatio n is in the be st interest of the children.-5- 8. That upon the e x pert testimony of Beth Shanklin, MS, the ch i ldren ha ve bee n traumatized, these a re sp e c ia l ne e ds c hil dr e n, a ndvis itatio n w iththe ir mothe r o r m a te rn a l fa mil y me mbe rs c aus e s th e se children se vere e mo tiona l harm. [B.L .M.] has ADHD, P o s tT r au m a t i c S tr e s s D i s o r d e r a n d r e l a t e d a n x i e t y. [K.A.M.] has R obinow’s Sy ndrome is [sic] require s medical atte n t i o n and surg erie s as well as is ADH D. There are issues of phy sical, emotional an d sexual abuse.
9. That the Court finds the wit n es s es for the Petitioner a re cre dible.
10. T h a t th e Co u r t f

in d s th e mo th e r , g r a n d mo the r, and witnesses f

or the Respondent have a

differ ence of perc eption in this m atter.
11. Pursuant to T .C.A. 36-1-113( I ) the childre n have n o meaning ful relationship wit h their mother, ther e are past issues of abuse and neg lect, that the c hildren to this day

are fea rful of the ir mother and ma terna l relatives and suffe r emotional and psy chological harm, that these are specia l needs children, that the De pa rt me nt h a s e xer c ise d a ll re a so na ble e ff orts t o assist this family , and due to the conce rns o f t he mother’s men t al s tatus, the Court finds by clea r and convin cing evidenc e that termination of pare ntal rig hts is in t he best intere st of the childre n.
12 . The c hil dr e n ha ve be e n r e mov e d b y or de r o f this Cou rt fo r a pe ri odof

six ( 6) mon ths fr om the ir mothe r; the c on dit ion s w hic h le d to the ir re mov a l st ill persist as t heir mot her is unable to resume c are ; other c on ditio ns pers is t w hi ch i n al l p rob abi li tywould c a us e the c h i l d ren to be subjected to further a buse and neg lect and in a ddition due to the special ne eds of the children and which, ther efor e, pre vent the childre n’s re turn to the c are of

the Re sp on de nt; the re is l itt le likelihood that these conditions will be r emedied at an e ar l y d a t e s o t h a tt h e s e c h i l d r e n c a n b e r e tu r n e d to Respondent in the near

future; a nd the continuation of the le gal pare nt andc hil d r e la tio ns hip g re a tly-6- diminis hes the c hildren’s c hance s of early integ ration into a stable and pe rmane nt home.
13 . T hat it

is b y c le ar andc on vin c ing e vid e nc e that it is in the best interest of the children that the par ental rig hts of their mother to the c hildren be f oreve r terminated and that the complete custody , control, and g ua rdian sh ip o f the c hil dr e n b e a wa rd e d to the State of Te nn e sse e , D e pa

rt ment of Chi ldr e n’ s Se rv ic e s, wi th the ri g ht t o p la c e the c hil dr e n fo r a do pti on a ndto c on se nt t o s uc h a do pti on in l oc o p are nti s su bjec t to any pare ntal rig hts of the father.
14. That the De partment o f C h ildren’s Servic es has exercised r easona

ble ef forts t o preve nt removal a nd re u n i fyt h e fa m i l y

i n cl u d i n g C E T AC co u n s el i n g, se ve ra l ps y c ho log ic a l e va luatio ns, Hom e Ti e s, PEACH, c ounseling from seve ral sourc es, super vised visitation, case manag ement and numerous custodial pla c e me nts

. 15. That this Decr ee of

g uard i an s h i p shall have the eff ect o f terminating all the rig hts and obligations of the Respondent(s) to the children and of the c hildren to the Respon dent(s) a rising f rom the par ental relat ionship, and the Respondent(s) a re not he rea fter entitled to noti ce of proc eeding s for the a doption of the c hil dr e n by a no the r no r ha ve a ny ri g ht t o o bje c t to such adoption or other wise to participate in such pr oc e e din g s.
16. Awar ding le g al and phy sical custody to the moth er would post a risk of substantial harm to the children.
I T I S, TH EREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND D ECREED:
1

. T h at t his Decr ee of

Guar dianship shall have the eff ect of terminating all the rig hts and obligations of the Respondent, Ta mmy

Robbins, to the children and of the c hildren t o the Respondent arising fr om the pare ntal relationship, an d the Respondent is not here afte r entit led to notice of pr ocee dings f or the-7- adoption of the c hildren by another nor have any

rig ht to ob je c t to su c h a do pti on or

oth e rw ise to p art ic ipate in s uc h p ro c e e din g s. 2. That all pare ntal rig hts of Tammy Robbins, to t he children ... a

re he reby fore v er te rminated; that the c o m p l e t e c u s t o d y , c o n tr o l , a n d g u ar d i a n s h i p o f sa id children is her eby awa

rded to the St ate of

Tenne ssee, De pa rt me nt o f C hil dren ’s Ser vic e s, wi th the ri g ht t o place the childre n for a doption and consent to such a do pti on in loc o pare nti s subj e c t to a ny pa re nta l r ig hts of the father.
3. Th a t the fe e of the Gu ard ia n A d Lite m, D on Rui s, and appointed c ounsel, Wi lliam R. Neese, sha ll be pa id u po n s ub mis sio n o f the app ro pria te c la im f orm. 4. That if anyindige nt Respondent proce eds on appea l to the Court of Appea ls, the costs of the transcript of the t ri al o f this matter shall be reimburse d by

the Administrative Dire ctor of the Sup re me Cou rt , n ot t o ex c e e d tw o d oll ars a ndfi fty cents ($ 2

. 5 0 ) per pa g e. Any costs of the tra nscript exceeding two dollars and f ifty cents ($2.50) pe r pag e, but n o t to e xc e e d th e maximu m a mo u n t o f the Deleg ated Purc hase A uthority , shall be paid by the De pa rt me nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s.

On J anuary

23, 2004, Ms. Robbins fil ed a mot ion to alter or a mend the judg ment. On Fe bruary 6, 2004, the State of Te nnessee filed an answe r to Ms. Robbins’ moti on to alter or amend. On Fe bruary

20, 2004, Ms. Robbins timely filed her notice of appea l. T he motion to alter or a mend was he ard on Marc h 23, 2004, and was denied by an order entered on A pril 20, 2004. Ms. Robbins filed a motion for a dditional tim e within which to file a rec ord in this appeal. This motion was g rante d by

an orde red e ntere d on May 21, 2004.
II. ISSU ES Ap pe lla nt s ta te s th e iss ue s o n a pp e a l a s f oll ow s: Issue 1: “Whether the Trial Court erre d in allowing a person not a qua lified expert to offer expert opinions in t estimony at trial and in c onsidering that testimonyin making its dec ision.”-8-

Issue 2: “Whether theT ri al Court err ed in basing its decision on inaccur ate, incor rec t and untru e t es t i m o n y of a pr offe red e x pert witness while disre g arding the testimony of a muc h more highly qualified e x pert witness without basis or re ason.”
Issue 3: “Whether the Trial C ourt err ed in disreg arding the testimony of De fendant and the fac t witnesses she pre sented in dec iding to terminate her pare ntal rig hts.”
Issue 4: “Whether the Trial Court er red in ref using to observe Def

endant with her children, a s r e qu e ste d b y

De fe nd a nt, in or de r to pr op e rl y e va luate a ndde te rm ine the truthof Pla int if f’ s c la im that Def endant’ s children f

ear ed her .”
Issue 5: “Whether the Trial Court e rre d in te rminating Def endant’ s pare ntal rig hts based on the fa lse claim that Plaintiff ha d remove d Def endant’ s children f

rom her and taken c ustody of them on many occa sions when, in fac t, Defe ndant had be en for ced to se ek the a ssistance of Plaintiff by circ umstances be y ond her c ontrol and only did so in the best interest of he r childre n.”
III . STA ND ARD O F RE VI EW
Since this case w as tried by a court sitti ng without a jury , we r eview the case de novo upon the re cord w ith a presumption of cor rec tness of the finding s of fa ct by the trial co u rt

. Unless the evidenc e preponderates ag ainst the finding s, we must aff irm, absent er

ror of law. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d).
IV . A NA LY SIS
Issue 1: “Whether the Trial Court er red in allow ing a person not a qual if ied expert

to off er ex p er t o p i n ions i n testim ony at trial and in considering that testim ony in m akin g its decision.”
Ms. Robbins contends that the trial court e rre d in allowing E liz abeth Shanklin, a c ounselor with Pathway s of Tenne ssee, to te stify as an expert witness at trial. Ms. Robbins arg ues that since Ms. Shanklin was not a licensed counselor at the time of trial, she “ cannot indepe ndently [form and express an expert opinion] as a matter of law .”
On vo ir di re, Ms . Sh a nk lin te sti fi e d a bo ut h e r p ro fe ssi on a l qu a lif ic a tio ns . Sh e ho lds a bache lor’s deg ree in psy cholog y with a minor in biology from the Unive rsity

of Tenne ssee, a nd she holds a master’ s deg ree in clinical psy cholog y from Murr ay

State University . At the t ime of trial, she was th r e e h o u r s s h o r t o f h a v in g a L ic e n s e d Pr o f e s s io n a l Co u n s e lo r c e r ti f ic a ti o n
. Sh e h a d been employ ed by

Pathway s o f Tenne ssee f or appr ox imately

fourtee n y ear s, where the majority of her pr a c tic e wa s pro vid ing tr e a tme nt to ch ild re n who ha ve be e n p hy sic a lly , s e xua lly , a nde mot ion a lly abused. B eca

use Ms. Shanklin was not a Licen s ed P ro fe ssional Counselor, she worke d under the supervision of license d clinical socia l worke rs. I n her work at Pathway s, Ms. Shanklin counseled and diag nosed patients, subjec t to the review of a lice nsed clinica l social worke r.-9-

At the time of trial, Ms. Shanklin ha d substantial experience rende ring opinions as an expert in other court proce eding s. S h e had a lrea dy testified in eig hteen other case s in 2003, prior to her t es t i m o n y i n t h e R o b b i n s t er m i n at i o n h ea ri n g.
I n g ener al, questions reg arding the admissibilit y , qualifications, relevanc y and compe tency of e xpe rt te sti mon y

are lef t to the dis c re tio n o f the tr ia l c ou rt

. McDaniel v. CSX Tran sportation , Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257, 263-264 (Tenn.1997). T o as s i s tt h e t ri ero f f ac ti n t h i s “ga t ek ee p i n g” function, Tenne ssee Rule of E vidence 702 permits an expert to testify “in the form of an opinion or otherwise,” o n l y

wher e the “ scientific, tec hnical, or othe r spec ialized knowledg e” of fer ed by the witness will substantiallyassist the trier of fac t. Tenn. R. Evid. 702. Tenne ssee Rule of E vidence 703 require s an expert' s opinion to be supported by trustworthy

fac ts or data “ of a ty

pe rea sonably

relied up on by e xpe rt s in the pa

rt ic ula r fi e ld in f ormin g op ini on s o r i nf

e re nc e s u po n th e su bje c t.” Te nn . R. Ev id. 70 3. Th e de te rm inativ e fa c tor is “w he the r the wi tne ss’ s qua lif ic a tio ns auth orize him or

he r t o g ive an informed opinion on the subject at issue.” S ta te v . St e v e ns , 78 S.W.3d 817, 834 (Tenn.2002) . A trial court’s ruling on th e ad m i s s i b i l ity of such e vidence may

be overturned on appea l only

if the discre tion is ex erc ised arbitra rily or is abused. Id. at 832.
We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Ms. Shanklin was c omp e te nt t o re nd e r expe rt te sti mon y in the c a se a t ba r. I t is c le ar f

ro m th e re c or d th a t Ms . Sh a nk lin h a d s u b s t a n t i a l p r o f

e s s i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e b o t h d i a g n o s i n g an d t r e ati n g c h i l d r e n w h o h a d b e e n s e x u a l l y, e mot ion a lly

a ndph y sic a lly

abu se d. Th e fa c t that sh e wa s no t a lic e ns e d c ou ns e lor is i mmate ri a l to wh et her she was qua lified to rende r an e x pert opinion in this matter. Ms. Robbins has direc ted us to no ca s e l aw , nor have we f ound any , that provides authority for he r view that an unlicense d c ou ns e lor is, as a ma tte r o f l a w, inc omp e te nt t o r e nd e r e xpe rt te sti mon y . T he re c or d o f M s. Shanklin’s educationa l a

n d p r o f e s s io nal ac complishments provided an a mple basis on which the tria l court c ould find that Ms. Shank l i n wa s co m p etent to render a n expert opinion; i ndeed, in e arlier proce eding s, many

other c ourts had found Ms. Shanklin to be a competent expert witness. There fore , we c on c lud e that th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.
Issue 2: “Whether the Trial Court er red in basi ng its decision on inaccurate , incorre ct and u ntrue te stim ony of a proff ere d e xpert wi tness wh ile disregarding the testim ony of a m uch m ore highly qu alif

ied expert

wi tness wi thout basi s or re ason.”
We c on str

ue Ms. Rob bin s’ se c on d iss ue on app e a l a s a c ha lle ng e to the re sp e c tiv e we ig hts that the trial court ga ve to the testimony of Eliz abeth Shanklin (discussed su pr a , w ithre fe re nc e to I ssu e 1) , th e c ou ns e lor a t Pa thw a y s of Te nn e sse e wh o c ou ns e le d B .L .M ., K. A. M. , a nd Ms. Rob bin s, a n d t o t h e t e s t i m o n y o f

D r
. C h ar l e s V i ar , a l i c e n s e d s e n i o r p s yc h o l o g i c a l e x a m i n e r

w i t h P a t h w a ys of Tennes s ee who eva luated Ms. Robbins before trial. It is Ms. R obbins’ contention that Dr. V iar was “ the only

rea l expert, certa inly

the most qualified ex pert” to testify at M s. Robbins’ termination of par ental rig hts hearing , and that since “Dr

. Viar is so much more qualified than Ms. Shanklin ... t h e r e i s n o b a s i s f

o r a c c e p t i n g h e r o p i n i o n o v e r D r
. V i ar ’ s a n d t h e T r i a l C o u r te rr e d i n d o i n g s o
. ” In order to evaluate the merit of this issue, it is nece ssary to review both Dr. Viar ’s expert qualifications as we ll as the substance of his testimonyat trial.-10-

Both Ms. Robbins and DCS sti pulated that Dr . Viar w as qualified to r ender an expert opinion. Dr. Viar holds ba chelor ’s and maste r’s de g ree s in educa t i o n al psy cholog y from the U n i v e r s i t y o f T e n n e s s e e a t M ar t i n , a n d a d o c t o r at e i n c o u n s e l i n g f r o mM e m p h i s S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y. He is a lice nsed senior psy cholog ical examiner. At the t ime of his testimonyin this case, Dr . Viar ha d b e e n e mpl oy e d w ithPa thw a y s o f T e nn e sse e fo r t e n o r e le ve n y e ars
. Dr. Via r had me t with Ms. R obbins once, for appro x i mately

three hours, on Octobe r 27, 2003, befor e the November 2003 termination proce eding

. I n his testimonyon direc t examination at the te rm ina

tio n p ro c e e din g , D r. Vi ar d e sc ri be d M s. Rob bin s’ de me a no r a s h e ob se rv e d it du ri ng the ir m ee t i n g: Q. When discussing he r childre n, did y ou hav e an y observations about her demea nor that ra ised some issues with y ou?
A. She did not seem as upset a bout that as I

expected her

to be, I ’ll put it t hat way . Usually , when we have, espec ially a mot her in a si tuation like this, they are g e ne ra lly

be sid e the mse lve s, a nd I did no t pic k up on that de me a no r at a ll. During his October 27 me eting with Ms. Robbi ns, Dr. V i ar ad m i nistered se vera l tests to her, including the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality I nventory -2 (MMPI -2). B ased on the results of the MMP I -2 , D r. Vi ar dr e w se ve ra l con c lus ion s abo ut M s. Rob bin s’ pe rs on a lit y a ndabo ut h e r f

itn e ss to have c ustody

of her children. H e testified about these conclusions upon direc t examination at the t er m i n at i o n h ea ri n g. Q. Desc ribe Ms. Robbins’ persona lityto us based on the MMPI -2, what did y ou find there ?
A. On the MMPI -2 we had indications of impulse disorde r, we ha d indications of a pe rsonality

disorder. The re w ere are as o n t h e MMPI -2 that we re signific ant. One thing was, one thing I would suspect would be a rise on the h y s t e r i a s c a l e
. O n h e r

v a l i d i t y s c o r e s t h e r e ’ s a

r i s e o n t h e L- s c a l e , a n d t h e Lscale is a validity

scale measure ment that was done for the MMPI -2, and w hat she was try ing to do in that te st w as prese nt he rself in the best possible light a ndthat, i n e ff

e c t, s up pr e sse d s ome of

the oth e r s c a le s. Q. Yo u a c tua lly ma de dia g no sis of imp uls e c on tr ol dis or der, per so na lit y disorder, N .O.S., and then of course , the lower intellectual functioning . That all being said, how did y ou fee l a bout her pa

renting skills, her abilityto have custody of her children?
A. My

are a or my

impression of conc ern was that there was a lack of conce rn. I ’m no t saying sh e ’s a ba d pe rs on . What I ’m sa y ing is that Ire a lly wo nd e r i f-11- she would pay

the appropriate attention in providing for her kids on a day -in, day -out basis. That wa s basically my conce rn. Q. L et’s go back t o impulse control disorder. What would y ou expect from her

— A. Someone to do things impulsively without thinki ng about them and sometimes reg retting what they did after war ds. I mpulse control disorder display s instabilit y , if y ou will. I t display s not planning ahea d in time, using resour ces that shouldn’t be used for particula r thing s. I f a c hild’s needs we re appar ent and she made them impul sively and did not satisfy

those nee ds and te nd e d to he r o wn ne e ds a t th e tim e , th os e ty pe s o f thin g s. Q. Personalitydisorder a g ain, that g oes to somebody ’s per sonality , that’s not something that can be chang ed—
A. Personality

disorder is no t l i ke a ne urosis or psy chosis or anything to that e ff e c t. P e rs on a lit y

dis or de r is a pe rv a siv e ty pe of be ha vio r that oc c a sio na lly inj ur e s oth e r pe op le , so me tim e s wi tho ut int e nt a nd make s lif e ve ry dif fi c ult fo r p e op le aro un d th e m. Q. Ba sically , within y our expertise as a psy cholog ical examiner for the State of Tenne ssee, y ou found that she is not mentally competent to ha ve custody of her c hildren?
A. I c a nn ot i n g oo d c on sc ie nc e re c omm e ndthat sh e ha ve c us tod y , altho ug h I did rec ommend that supervised visitation may be appr opriate, de pending on the rea ction of the children. I think it’s important for the childre n to know who the ir mothe r w a s. Q. I asked y ou about t his earlier, but based on a ll this , y ou would want to know what .... the c hildren thoug ht about visitation?
A. Yes, I think that’ s important how the children rea ct to visitation. I think that’s ve ry imp orta nt.
Dr . V iar w e nt o n to no te that he ha d n e ve r m e t B .L .M . o r K .A .M ., no r h a d h e re vie we d th e ir counseling rec ords. Further on in his testim o n y on direc t examination, Dr. Viar wa s questioned about the su sc e pti bil ity

of pe rs on a lit y

dis or de rs to t

re a tme nt: Q. When we talk about pe rsonality disorder, that’s not somet h ing that can be fix ed with counse ling ove r the ne x t three months or—-12-

A. Pe rs on a lit y

dis or de rs are ve ry

pe rv a siv e , the y ’re ve ry re sis ta nt t o tr e a tme nt. One of the m ain problems with personality disorder is that these people don’t think any thing is wrong with them. I nadvertently they can hurt other people , not intentio n a ll y

s o me ti me s , a n d I

b e li e v e th a t’ s th e ty

p e s h e h a s
. I

d o n ’t be lie ve sh e is m a lic iou s in wh a t sh e ’s do ing , b ut I do thi nk sh e ha s a perva sive persona litydisorder. I think may be she w ould like to solve that situatio n, a ndob vio us ly , it wo uldtake lon g te rm

the ra py to d o th a t.

*** Q. Th e re ha s to be tr e a tme nt thr ou g h a ll this a s w e ll?
A. R i gh t

. I f s h e go es i n t o tre at m en t , s h e i s go i n g t o h av e t o b e w i l l i n g t o ch an ge an d t h at ’s v er y

t o u gh fo r p eo p l e b ec au s e p eo p l e d o n ’t l i k e c h an gi n g.
L ater , under c ross-examination, Dr. Viar stated that his rec ommendation of super vised vis i tation should be re- evaluated if Ms. Robbins’ children we re strong ly resistant to visitation: Q. [Y] our information that these child re n have a resistanc e to their mother wo uldbe he ars a y , y ou ha ve no pe rs on a l kn ow le dg e of that?

***
A. I have no pe rsonal knowledg e. I haven’ t ha d any contac t with the children or anything e lse.

*** Q. S o t h en y o u ’r e n o tn ec es s ar i l y m ak i n g?
A. I ’m n o taw ar e o f a n y re s i s t an ce
. I

h av e ab s o l u t el y

n o co n t ac t , n o t h i n g. Q. So y ou r r e c omm e nd a tio n is thi s su perv ise d v isi ta tio n u nle ss the re is s ome strong level of resistance and if there is, then we need to re- evaluate i t at that po int ?
A

. A b s o l u t e l y. Although Ms. Robbins claims that the trial cour t errone ously g ave le ss weig ht to Dr. Viar’ s testimony than i t did to Eliz abeth Shanklin’s testimony , it must be noted that Dr . Viar did not in any way endorse Ms. Robbins’ fitness as a par ent. His rec ommendatio n o f s upervised visitation was e xpre ssl y no t pr e mis e d u po n a ny

int e ra c tio n w ithB .L .M . an d K.A .M ., bu t ra the r wa s b a se d u po n h is-13-

assumption that B.L .M. and K.A.M.—with whom he had had no contac t and whose r ecor ds he had not review ed—would not be r esistant to such visitation.
I n c on tr a st w ithDr . V iar’ s te sti mon y that w a s b a se d e nti re ly

up on his e va luatio n o f M s. Robbins, Ms. S hanklin’s testimony was based l arg ely upon her counseling sessions with B.L .M. and K. A. M. on a we e kly or biw e e kly ba sis fo r al mos t thr e e y e ars . Ms. Sha nk lin re la te d, in t ra g ic de ta il, the disclosures made by B.L .M. and K.A.M. that led Ms. Shanklin to conclude that the childre n had been se vere ly

traumatized by

their mother: Q

. Wh a t w a s th e p r e s e n ti n g p r o b le m f o r [B

. L

. M

. ]?
A. [B.L .M.] was livi ng in a foster home; he had been pla ced the re. The re w ere alleg ations that he ha d b een se x ually abused. H e wa s withdrawn, ha ving problems sleeping , he wa s d istrustful, destructive with toy s, inattentive, hyper, a rg umentative, re fused to comply , he blamed others and he would start fi g hts

. Q. I n y our cour se of a ssessing him, wha t d eterminations did y ou make? What did he tell y ou reg arding his situation?
A. He sta

rt e d ta lki ng abo ut so me of the inc ide nts that ha d ha pp e ne d in his ho me with hi s b i o l o gical mother and the treatment that he had r ece ived, the way that sh e ha d d isc ipl ine d h im. Q. What di d h e te ll y ou abo ut?

***
A. He ha d made c omments that Tammy has t old him to report that John touched him ina pp ro pria te ly , J oh n be ing his bio log ic a l fa the r. He ’s ma de c omm e nts that Tammy

has whipped him a nd that she has take n a sword and stabbed the ceiling ; that she has forc ed him to say things like “tell me that y ou love me,” “g ive me a hug ,” “I ’m not g oing to let y ou leave until y ou g ive me a hug .” He re po rt e d th a t sh e ha d h it h im o n the e ar an d on the le g . He re po rt e d in iti a lly that Tammy

held his penis when he was g oin g to the bathroom. That wa s when he was six y ear s old. He stated that she had play ed with his penis, that she had ha d [K.A.M.] lick [B.L .M.]’s penis. Tammy had had [B.L .M.] l ick her private parts. He re ported that Ta mmy had put a stick i n h i s butt and blood came out. He also stated t hat his g randmother was pre g nant when that occur red. H e re ported that Ta mmy had put handcuf

fs on him and desc ribed that she had “ my

arms ar ound a tre e” and she choppe d the tree down wit h an ax. He reported that she would drink beer and whiskey out of a baby bottle, that she would in his words, “hump Ge ne” [Ms. Robbins’ husband at the-14- time] and they

would have to watch. He reported that she ha d humped a lot of oth e r me n a ndhe ha d s e e n th a t. H e re po rt e d th a t T a mmy ha d p ut ants in his sist er’ s underpa nts when they wer e outside in the y ard play ing. H e re po rt ed th a t he ha d s e e n T a mmy kis s G e ne ’s —w hat he c a lle d w inky , in reg ard to his penis. He r eporte d that Tammy had cut his wrist and e ven more rec ently he showe d me the sca

rs that wer e on his wrist from what he said was that. He r epor t ed t hat she ha d slapped him in the mouth and hit him i n the sto ma c h, a nda t th is t ime I wo uldsa y

that by my stand ard s, th at’ s p hy sic a l, emotional, and sexual abuse. Q. These w ere all disclosures that he ma de at the a g e of f ive?
A. Yes. The se have been c onsistent throug h almost thre e y ear s that I ’ve w orked wi th h im. Q. You’ve dealt with childre n that have be en coa ched—
A. Ye s. Q. —manipulated? I s this consistent with a child who has bee n manipulated or coac hed?
A. No . [B. L .M .] as we ll as [K. A. M. ] ha ve c on sis te ntl y re po rt e d th e sa me e ve nts oc c ur ri ng a t dif fe re nt time s in diff

e re nt se tti ng s. Th e y ha ve be e n in div idu a lly in my office and reported the same incidents. I don’t believe these c hildren wer e coache d. There was some rea l traumatic event t hat occ urre d to them. I d on’t know that I

believe a ll the details, but I believe the re w as enough tr auma in the ir liv e s th a t it

ha s tr aumatize d th e m.
Ms. Sha nk lin we nt o n to te sti fy that th e c hil dr e n h a d ma de pr og re ss i n he r c ou ns e lin g se ssi on s w ith the m, s ta tin g , “ [t]he y are do ing ve ry we ll b e c aus e the y fe e l sa fe in the e nv ir on me nt the y ’r e in. ” Ms. Shanklin testified that past visitation wit h their mother h ad resulted in “deterioration” of the c hil dr e n’ s b ehavior . M s. Sha nk lin wa s th e n q ue sti on e d a bo ut w he the r s he be lie ve d th e ra pe uti c visitation would be appropriate: Q. [W]ha t is y ou r o pin ionof the ra pe uti c vis itatio n at th is p oin t?
A. At thi s p oin t I

fe e l it wo uldbe e xtre mely des tr uct ive to the c hil dr e n’ s w e ll being . I t would erode all sense of trust that the children have in adults that they have c ontact with. It would be traumatiz ing and we would ba sically be back to whe re w e we re in 2000.-15-

Questioned further a

bout Dr. Viar ’s testimony , M s . Shanklin stated, “I concur red w ith everything he sai d un ti l the l a st f

e w s e nte nc e s. ” She wa s th e n a sk e d to e xpla in h ow sh e dif fe re d w ithhis t e s t i m o n y: Q

. Wh a t i s y o u r

p r o b le m w ith th a t p ar t [ o f D r
. V ia r ’ s te s ti mo n y ]?
A. I believe that these children would be once ag ain traumatiz ed if they had any contac t with their mother. They know that Tammy is their biologica l mother but at this point they

do not se ek to have a re lationship with her, and with the post-traumatic stre ss disorder, I don’t think t hey

could emotionally

or phy sically

handle ha ving any

kind of contac t with her. Q. Do y ou see that in the near future?
A. I see that continuing f

or the re st of their life. Concluding he r testimony on direc t e x amination, Ms. Shanklin was asked one more time whether s h e w o u l d r e c o m m e n d v i s i t a t i o n w i t h a n y m e m b e r s o f t h e m a t e r n a l s i d e o f

t h e c h i l d r e n ’ s f

a m i l y:
A. No, no visitation at all. The kids need a stable, sec ure, nona

busive home, and from the c ontact that I ’ve ha d with the materna l family , they can’ t provide that kind of environment f or the c hildren. Q. And if for ced to visit, what would be the harm to the c hildren?
A. They

would be emotionally

traumatized. They

would be angry , ag g ressive, and they would be ac ting out in school, t heir gra des would suffe r. Their social int e ra c tio ns wi th ev e ry on e wo uld a lso be de str oy e d. I do n’ t thin k th e y c ou ld ever form a tr usting re lationship with any one eve r ag ain.
The we ight, f

aith, and credit to be given to any witness’s testimony lies in the first instance w ith the trier of fac t, and the cre dibilit y to be acc orded will be g iven g reat w eig ht by the appe llate court. See In re Est ate of Wa lto n v . Young , 950 S.W.2d 956, 959 (Tenn . 1997) ; Whitaker v. Whitaker , 957 S.W.2d 834, 837 (Tenn . Ct. App. 1997) . We c on c lud e , f ro m r e viewi ng bo th Dr . V iar’ s a ndMs. Shanklin’s testimony , that the evidenc e does not pr eponder ate a g ainst the fac tual finding s made by the tr ia l c ou rt . Ind e e d, it a

pp e ars to this Cou rt , fr om a tho ro ug h re vie w of the tr ia l tr a ns c ri pt, that Ms

. Shanklin’s testimonysupp l i ed the trial court with evidenc e that wa s lacking from Dr . Viar’ s testimonyg iven his lack of know ledg e about the children—namely , evidenc e of the abuse suf fer ed by B .L .M

. a nd K. A. M. a nd the lik e ly e ff e c ts o f s uc h a

bu se sh ou ld the y

c on tin ue to h a ve c on ta c t w ith Ms. Rob bin s o r M s. Rob bin s’ famil y . T his iss ue is w ith ou t me ri t.
Iss ue 3: “W he th e r th e Tr ial Co ur t e r r e d in disr e ga r ding th e te st im ony of Defe ndant and th e fact witnesses she presented in decidin g to te rm inate her pare ntal rights.”-16-

Appellant conte nds that the t rial court err oneously disreg arde d the testimony of De fendant and her fac t witnesses in rende ring its judgment in this matter. I n its Order Te rminating Parenta l Rig hts a ndPart ia l D e c re e of Gu ard ia ns hip , th e tr ia l c ou rt state d, in r e le va nt p art , a s f oll ow s: Upon proof introduc ed at the he aring , statements of counsel, the r ecommendation of the Guar dian Ad L item, D onald L

. Ruis, and the entire rec ord, the Court finds upon clea r and convincing evidenc e that the P etition to Terminate Parenta l Rights filed by the S tat e of

Te nn e sse e , D e pa

rt me nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s, is w e ll t ake n a s to Respondent, Tammy

Robbins, and should be sustained and relief g rante d there under for the c auses ther ein stated:

***
9. That the Court finds the witnesse s for the Petitioner a re c redible.
10. That the Court finds the mother, g randmother , and w i t n es s es for the Respondent have a diffe renc e of pe rce ption in thi s matter.
11

. Pur su a nt t o T .C. A. 36 -1 -1 13 (i ) the c hil dr e n ha ve no me a nin g fu l r e la tio ns hip with their mother, there are past issues of abuse and neg lect, that the c hildren to this day

are fea rfu l of their mother and materna l relatives a nd suffe r emotional and psy cholog ical harm, that these are specia l ne eds children, that the Department has ex erc ised all rea sonable e fforts to assist t his family , and due to the conce rns of the mother’s mental status, the Court finds by clea r and c on vin c ing e vid e nc e that te rm inatio n o f p are nta l r ig hts is in the be st i nte re st of the c hildren.
We f ir st n ote that, c on tr ary

to M s. Rob bin s’ c on te nti on , th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s or de r i nd ic a te s th a t it did no t “ dis re g ard ” the te sti mon y of Ms. Rob bin s o r h e r f a c t w itn e sse s. Th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing of fa c t, to the eff ect that Ms. R obbins and her witnesses had “ a diffe renc e of pe rce ption in thi s matter,” le ads us to c on c lud e that th e tr ia l c ou rt pro perl ye va luate d th e truth fu lne ss andc re dib ili ty of the se witnesses. When the resolution of i ssues in a case depends upon the truthfulness of witnesses, the tr ia l ju dg e , w ho ha s th e op po rtun ity to o bs e rv e the wi tne sse s in the ir ma nn e r andde me a no r w hil e te sti fying , is in a fa

r be tte r p os iti on than th is C ou rt to d e c ide tho seiss ue s. Mc Cal e b v . Sat urn Co rp ., 910 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn . 1995); Whit aker v. Whi taker , 957 S.W.2d 834, 837 (Tenn .Ct.App. 1997). The we ight, f

aith and cr edit to be g iven to any witness’s testimony lies in the first instance w ith the trier of fac t, and the cre dibilit y acc orded will be g iven g reat weig ht by the appe llate court. Id. ; In re Est ate of Wa lto n v . Young , 950 S.W.2d 956, 959 (Tenn . 1997)

. Having revie wed the rec ord on appea l, we note that, at t rial, t he S tate presented a g reat deal of te sti mon ia l e vid e nc e fr om d if fe re nt wi tne sse s— inc lud ing c ou ns e lor s, c a se wo rk e rs , c ommun ity m em bers, a nd foster pa

rents—that consistently

supported the State’ s assertion that B .L .M. and K.A.M. we re ne g lected and abused w hile in the car e of Ms. Robbins and h er family . I ndeed, a-17-

striking c onsistency

in the testimonyoffe red by the State’s wi t nesses c oncerned the c hildren’s intense fe ar of their mother and materna l f amily members. Ms. Robbins and her family denied that there wer e any

problems with Ms. Robbins’ parenting skills. Under these c ircumstance s, it was i n cumbent upon the trial court to evaluate the truthfulness a nd cre dibilit y of the witnesse s. Our revie w of the r ecor d on appea l shows t h at t h e trial court c ould have r easona bly doubted the cre dibilit y

of Ms

. R o b b ins’ fac t witnesses. Ther efor e, we hold that the evidenc e does not preponde rate ag ainst the trial court’s evaluation of the truthfulness and c redibility of the witnesse s in this case.
Issue 4: “ W h et h er the Trial Court e rre d in refusin g to observe Defendan t with h er children, as requested by Defendan t, i n order to properly evalu ate and deter m ine the tr uth of P laintif f’s claim that Defendan t’s c hild ren feare d her.”
Ms. Rob bin s’ nex t is su e on app e a l c on c e rn s th e re fu sa l of the tr ia l c ou rt

to o bs e rv e Ms. Robb in s wi th he r c hil dr e n inor de r t o e va luate the truthof the State ’s c la im that Ms . Ro bb ins ’ c hil dr e n f e are d h e r. As su min g , f

or the sake of

arg ume nt, tha

t suc h an ob se rv a tio n w ou ld c on sti tut e rele vant evidence, we conc lude that, in light of the broad r ang e of e vidence admitted at trial that te nd e d to sh ow the natur e of B .L .M

. a nd K. A. M. ’s fe e lin g s fo r Ms. Rob bin s, the tr ia l c ou rt pr op e rl y ref used to conduc t such an observation. Much t estimonial and documentary evidenc e wa s admitted at trial that wa s relevant to the question of the childre n’s fe eling s to wa rd M s
. R o bbins. Given the emotional nature of the issues involved, and the a g es of B .L .M. and K.A.M., it is likely that any such observation would have to be c onducted unde r car efully controlled conditions in order to have any signific ant probative value. Such mea sures would be time-consuming in the setting of a trial. Unde r these c ircumstance s, the trial court c ould r easona bly have c oncluded that a n observation by the trial court would c ause undue delay and wa s t e of tim e, and that it would constit ute unnec essary c umu la tiv e e vid e nc e . T e nn . R. Ev id. 40 3 s ta te s, “ Al tho ug h r e le va nt, e vid e nc e ma y be e xclu de d if its pro b at i v e value is substantially outweig hed by

the dang er of

unfair pr ejudice, c onfusion of the iss ue s, or mis leadi ng th e ju ry , o r b y c on sid e ratio ns of

un du e de la y , w a ste of

tim e , o r n e e dle ss pr e se ntatio n o f c umu la tiv e e vid e nc e .” Th e re fo re , w e c on c lud e that th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.
Issue 5: “ W he t he rt he Tr ia l C o ur t e r r e d i n t e r m in a t in g D e fe nd a nt ’ s pa r e nt a l r ig ht s based on the false claim that P laintif f h ad rem oved Defendan t’s c hild ren fromher and taken cu st ody of t he mon m any oc c as ion s whe n, i n fac t, De fend ant had be e n for c e d t o s e e k t he as sis ta nc e of P lai nt iff by c ir c um st anc e s be yo nd he r c ont r ol and onl y did so in th e be st int e r e st of h er c hild ren.”

Ms. Rob bin s’ fi fth iss ue on app e a l is he r c on te nti on that the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in basi ng its decision to terminate he r par ental rig hts on the “fa lse claim” that the State of Tenne ssee, De partment of Chi ldr e n’ s se rv ic e s h ad remov e d D e fe nd a nt’ s c hil dr e n f ro m he r o n “ ma ny

oc c a sio ns .” Ms. Robbins asserts that, in fac t, Defe ndant was f orce d to seek the State’s assistance by circ umstances be y on d h e r c on tr ol.-18-

Th e tr ia l c ou rt

fo un d, in i ts O rd e r T e rm inatin g Pare nta l Rig hts (r e pr od uc e d inits e nti re ty su pr a ), that the State re moved one or both of the childre n involuntarily on four occa s i o n s , and voluntarily

on one occ asion. Ms. Robbins contests the trial court’s f inding that the f

our involuntary re mov a ls w e re in f

a c t in vo lun tary , a ndfu rthe r c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr on eou sl y bas ed it s decision to terminate he r par ental rig hts based on these mul tiple remova ls. We will address ea ch of these two points in turn.
The re cord on appea l overwhe lmingly supports the trial court’s finding that there wer e four involuntary

remova ls of one or both of Ms. Robbins’ children. The voluminous documentation of the se re mov a ls, a dmi tte d in to e vid ence dur ing the te rm inatio n h e ari ng , w a s e sse nti a lly uncontra dicted by

Ms. Robbins. W e conc lude that the evide nce doe s not preponder ate a g ainst the tr ia l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing s c on c e rn ing the c ir c ums ta nc e s o f the se re mov a ls.
We further

conclude there i s n o merit in Ms. Robbins ’ conte ntion that the trial court e rr on e ou sly

ba se d it s d e c isi on to t e rm in ate the pa re nta l r ig hts of

Ms. Rob bin s o n th e se re mov a ls. First, we note that a revie w of the Orde r itself conta ins no indication that the termination was ba sed solely upon the fa ct of these remova ls. Rathe r, the court based its judg ment on a totality of evide nce, including e vidence of Ms. Robbins’ incompetency as a pa rent due to her menta l condition; evidence o f t h e tr au m a

s u f f e r e d b y t h e B

. L

. M

. a n d K

. A

. M

. w h i l e i n t h e c ar e o f t h e i r m o t h e r a n d h e r f a m i l y; the lack of

a meaning ful relationship betwe en the children and their mother; the childre n’s fe ar of the ir mothe r an d the ir mothe r’ s fa mil y ; and the pe rs ist e nc e of c on dit ion s th a t le d to the ir re mov a l; and the f act that a ny

reme dy of these c onditions was unlikely

. All of these f actor s were cited by

the trial court in conc luding that the te rmination was in the best intere st of the childre n.
We c on c lud e that th e tr ia l c ou rt ba se d its de c isi on to te rm inate Ms. Rob bin s’ pa re nta l r ig hts upon a rang e of te stimoni al and documentary evidenc e, not sole ly upon the fa ct of the r emovals of the B .L .M. and K.A.M. f rom her c ustody

on sever al occ asions. We further conclude , upon a thoroug h revie w of the r ecor d, that the evidenc e does not pre pond er at e aga inst the trial court’s fac tual finding s that serve d as a basis for the termination of Ms. Robbins’ parenta l rig hts. There fore , thi s is su e is w ith ou t me ri t.
V. CO NC LU SION
For the fore g oing rea sons, we a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt. Costs of this appeal ar e a s s e s s e d t o t h e A p p e l l a n t , T a m m y R o b b i n s , a n d h e r s u r e t y.

__________________________________________ W. F RANK CRA WF ORD , PR

E S I D I N G JU D G E , W .S.