IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs December 28, 2012

IN RE: DACIA S., ET AL.

Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Hamilton County

Nos. 245942, 245943, 245944 Suzanne Bailey, Judge

No. E2012-01797-COA-R3-PT-FILED-FEBRUARY 14, 2013

The State of Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition seeking

to terminate the parental rights of Sheila W. (“Mother”) to the minor children Dacia S.,

1

Aerial W. , and Teagan W. After a trial, the Trial Court entered its order terminating

2 3

Mother’s parental rights to the Children after finding and holding, inter alia, that DCS had

proven by clear and convincing evidence that grounds existed to terminate Mother’s parental

rights pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(2) and § 36-1-113(g)(3) and that the

termination was in the Children’s best interest. Mother appeals to this Court. We affirm.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Juvenile Court Affirmed;

Case Remanded

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which CHARLES D. SUSANO,

JR., P.J., and JOHN W. MCCLARTY, J., joined.

Jennifer G. Lloyd, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellant, Sheila W.

DCS also sought to terminate the parental rights of the Children’s biological father Donald S. 1

(“Father”). The Trial Court terminated Father’s parental rights to the Children and Father’s appeal of the

termination of his parental rights was pending before this Court at the time of the release of this Opinion.

Within the record on appeal Aerial issometimes referred to using Father’s surname and sometimes 2

referred to using Mother’s surname. Aerial’s birth certificate is not included in the record on appeal. We

refer to Aerial W. with the understanding that we are referring to the child Aerial S. a/k/a Aerial W.

Within the record on appeal Teagan issometimes referred to using Father’ssurname and sometimes 3

referred to using Mother’s surname. Teagan’s birth certificate is not included in the record on appeal. We

refer to Teagan W. with the understanding that we are referring to the child Teagan S. a/k/a Teagan W. 
Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; and Alexander S. Rieger, Assistant

Attorney General for the appellee, State of Tennessee Department of Children’s Services.

OPINION

Background

The Children were taken into State custody on December 14, 2009. DCS filed

the petition seeking to terminate Mother’s parental rights to the Children in September of

2011. The case proceeded to trial in June and July of 2012.

DCS caseworker Renita Underwood testified at trial. Ms. Underwood was

assigned to this case approximately six months after the Children came into State custody and

has remained the caseworker for the Children since that time. Ms. Underwood explained that

the Children originally were taken into custody because Mother was not on her medication

and Mother and the Children were living in a car. Ms. Underwood testified that Mother was

assessed at Moccasin Bend in December of 2009, diagnosed with psychotic disorder, and

prescribed Risperdal. DCS set up medication management for Mother with Joe Johnson and

provided in-home service to assist with transportation and monitoring.

Permanency plans were created which required Mother to pay child support

quarterly, have stable housing, remain on her medication, maintain employment, and attend

all meetings with DCS, among other things. Mother was employed at a gas station

convenience store across the street from her apartment from November of 2010 until April

of 2011.

The Children were returned to Mother for a trial home visit beginning on

February 5, 2011. Ms. Underwood testified that the Children were placed for the trial home

visit because:

The mother had completed her perm plan. She had did everything the

department had asked her to do. She had a stable home with enough

bedrooms; her mother was assisting her with the children with daycare when

she went to work; she was on her medication; she had in-home services. So

she had did everything the department had asked on her perm plan.

On April 12, 2011, the trial home visit was terminated and the Children were

taken back into State custody. Ms. Underwood explained that Mother’s sister called DCS

-2-
on April 12, 2011 because Mother had assaulted her mother, police had been contacted, and

Mother was no longer on her medication. Ms. Underwood described the incident stating:

So I got out there. The mother was in the kitchen. She was crying. As soon

as I walked through the door, Dacia stuck to my leg and Aerial stuck to my

other leg, so I couldn’t really move. They was walking with me everywhere

I went. And Teagan was just running around. And they had [Mother] sitting

on the couch by herself.

Ms. Underwood further stated:

Two weeks before the removal, the mother was very angry, and that was the

first time, since I began working with her, have I seen that side of her. And I

asked her was everything okay, and she said yes. But she was like very, very

angry that date.

And then two weeks later, I got the phone call from the sister, and she

had stated that she has not been taking her medication. Actually, [Mother’s

mother] knew that she was not on her medication but she did not call the

department.... [Mother’s] mother knew thatshe was not taking her medication.

She stated that she tried several times to get her to start back on her medication

but she would not take it.

On the day that the trial home visit was terminated, Mother told Ms.

Underwood that her psychiatrist had told her she did not need the medication anymore. Ms.

Underwood further described:

The mother was not on her medication; she had just assaulted her own mother.

We went over to the mother’s apartment, the curtains, the - - all her curtains

were torn down, all the children’s clothes was all over the apartment. It looked

like someone just went in the refrigerator and just poured food all through the

house.

And just observing that and observing the children’s behavior, how the

children wouldn’t even go to the mother because they were just stuck to me,

I had to just literally hold the kids by the hand and they had to come with me,

so just my observation, that was not the best place for the children during that

time.

-3-
Mother was charged with assault on her mother and Father’s sister. Ms. Underwood does

not know what happened with those charges.

Ms. Underwood took the Children back into State custody. Since then Mother

has not visited the Children or had any contact with them. DCS has not prevented Mother

from seeing the Children.

Ms. Underwood testified that since the Children were taken back into State

custody, Mother has been in and out of jail in different places, has not had housing or

employment, and has remained off of her medication. Mother also has not attended parenting

classes. Ms. Underwood stated that Mother is not capable of supporting herself or the

Children at this time.

The Children are in a foster home, which Ms. Underwood testified is a

potential adoptive home. Ms. Underwood testified that the Children are “very bonded to

their foster family ....” The foster parents have an adult child who is married and no longer

living with them and an 18 year old daughter. These adult children get along well with the

Children and Ms. Underwood stated they “call [the Children] their little sister and little

brother ....”

Prior to placing the Children in the foster home, DCS asked Mother’s mother

if she would be willing to take the Children, and she declined. The Children had been in

custody for almost three years by the time of trial . Ms. Underwood agreed that the Children

were placed in foster care because Mother had instability in her housing and mental health

and that at the time of trial Mother still had instability in her housing and mental health. The

Children do not have any special educational or medical needs. Ms. Underwood does not see

any chance for permanency for the Children with Mother.

Ms. Underwood stated:

Just the mother has called me two weeks. She left me a voice message and it

just said that “These are my children, my children, my children, and call me

back.” But I don’t have caller ID, so I don’t have a way to reach her. So she

did leave them two voice messages in the last two and a half weeks.

Ms. Underwood testified that during the second of those two voice mail messages Mother

said “‘This is [Mother], call me.’ But she didn’t leave a number again.” Mother knows how

to contact DCS but has not visited Ms. Underwood in Ms. Underwood’s office since the

Children were removed from her custody. Ms. Underwood testified that in the month prior

-4-
to trial Mother sent the Children a box of arts and crafts, but has not sent any money or

anything else for the Children.

Ms. Underwood gave a timeline since the removal of the Children after the

terminated trial home placement stating:

April of 2012, the mother was admitted to Moccasin Bend because we called

Crisis for her that day, so the police escorted her to Joe Johnson, and then from

Joe Johnson, she went to Moccasin Bend.

She was released on April the 20th. She was given a shot in her arm at

Moccasin Bend. And she was supposed to have went back every three weeks

because she was set up through Joe Johnson, every three weeks to get the shot

for her medication.

On 4/28, she was at Silverdale for the assault on her mother. I don’t

know when she was released. Then she went back to jail on May 31st in

Pikeville for the assault on the father’s sister. That’s when I found out that she

was pregnant. I don’t know when she was released. But I didn’t have no

contact with the mother until August the 18th when she showed up to court on

the petition for her children. She did show up for that.

Then she went back to jail in August for a failure to appear. And I

think she was released around October 20th, 2011. After that, I found out she

was living at the Community Kitchen. She had contacted me around October

20th to let me know that she was living at the Community Kitchen and she

wanted her children to come and live with her. And I did explain to her that

we could not place the children we [sic] her at the Community Kitchen.

I know, January 25, 2012, she was back in Moccasin Bend due to she

took a taxi cab to the foster home because she was going to get her children

and the cab driver pulled over and he realized she didn’t have no money to pay

him, so the police was called for that incident also.

And then Moccasin Bend ended up putting her in a hotel around

February, and after that, she was released. And then she came to court, then

Moccasin Bend held her until she had the baby in April. So it’s been very hard

to keep in contact with [Mother].

Ms. Underwood testified that Mother gave the baby up for adoption.

-5-
Ms. Underwood agreed that Mother was capable of parenting when she was

compliant with her medication. She stated that medication compliance and housing were

Mother’s biggest obstacles.

Mother testified at trial and admitted that she received mental health treatment

and that medication was prescribed for her. Mother also received counseling. She stated this

happened before the Children were taken into State custody. When asked where she was

living when the Children were first removed from her custody, Mother stated:

Dunlap. We went out and pay our rent, and we leave whenever we get ready

to - - we’re traveling right now around the other states. I plan on moving to

Florida, attending school in Florida. I have a letter from them. We’re going

to say [sic] in Georgia, Tennessee, staying all over.

Mother denied living in a car when the Children were first removed from her custody. She

stated that she was staying with her uncle Jason Brady whom she stated was 34 years old.

Mother testified that after the trial home placement was terminated, she was

treated at Mark Savant and then released to go to jail in Sequatchie County. After her release

from jail Mother stayed with Father’s brother for a couple of weeks. She then went to

Chattanooga to stay at the Mission. Mother testified that she has been there on and off for

two years.

Mother testified that she has seizures. She stated: “I just started since the kids

come back home. I had a seizure in front of them, and I didn’t want them to get caught up

with that.” Mother also testified that she recently was diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Mother stated she was being treated for her mental health issues at Silverdale by “the psych

doctor there.” Mother testified that at the time of trial she was taking the medications

Cogentin and Haldol.

Mother was asked about her job at a convenience store, and she testified she

worked there for about seven months. When asked why she left that job, Mother stated:

I was scared to death. I actually used the restroom on myself while I was at

work because I was so scared. I don’t have somebody to look after me, and

everybody was and thought I had been on drugs, so did the father, and he owed

me money for child support. He was out spending money on more drugs.

People get messed up sometimes. He approached me. When I first met

him, I was at the store, my first pay check. He approached me from behind.

-6-
So we had a few kids. And I separated. When I got pregnant, after conception

of my third kid, we separated, and finally he got took to jail.

Mother was asked what she was scared of at work and she stated: “I was scared

always. I was scared in my own home.... I was scared of guns and violence.” Mother was

asked if there was something about her job that scared her, and she stated: “It was right

across the street from my own home. I didn’t feel safe in my own home, either.” Mother

then was asked if an incident happened at work, and she stated: “The neighbor molested my

mother, and she’s sort of understanding things right now. She was born with scoliosis, and

I’m just looking at my kids like they’re safe and issues of health along the way.”

Mother stopped working at the convenience store in March or April of 2011

and has not had a regular job since then. Mother testified that she does “side jobs to get by.”

Mother was asked if she had any means of paying child support, and she stated:

Yes. Judge Owens told me to hang out with my family right now, my sister

and my mother, my immediate family. So I did that and my sister and I has

problems, too. She’s been to Valley. She run off with my W-2, that was

taking my taxes for child support. And if it got filed, then I wouldn’t have

been in jail.

I was hanging out with them. She overdosed on meth and she died, and

I was the one that had to wake her up. So I try to stay away from them, but the

judge said no, not yet.

Mother testified that at the time of trial she was incarcerated “[o]ver child

support,” and had six months more to serve. When asked how much she owed in child

support, Mother stated: “I’m guessing about $5,000.”

Mother was asked about what happened on the day the trial home placement

was terminated, and she stated:

Well, I went over to my mom’s house and she - - my sister was there, and my

sister wanted to play with the kids. And I don’t let her play with the kids,

because when I was a little girl, my mom found me undressed under the covers

with her. And she said if it happened again, she would tell my dad.

Next thing I knew, my dad was dead. And I was with my sister all

alone because of my mom can’t handle stuff like that. She’s too sick. I don’t

know why my father is dead, but she’s not going to kill my mother.... She

-7-
called the law, my mom did, and said I choked her. I wouldn’t lay hands on

my mother, unless she was sick, and I tried to help her.

When asked if she thought that in February of 2011 she was able to parent the

Children, Mother stated:

Most definitely not, but I loved my children and wanted to see them....

Because I was on the wrong type of medicines, they couldn’t find something

that works for me. I am 99 percent diabetic. And if I stay in places like jail or

stay in places where someone else is taking care of me, it worsens my

symptoms. And I know how it feels to ride around in a wheelchair or watch

people, at least, so I try to do everything so I don’t worsen my health.

Mother was asked if someone told her she was on the wrong medication and she stated:

Yes. I had a lawyer, he paid for a room for me for a month. And they brought

me my mail, they checked my mail for me. And I had people doing things for

me, and they brought it to me, and it wasn’t my lawyer. The first thing I heard

from him. And I didn’t even get to open it. Rushed me to the hospital, said

I was going to the hospital right now.

Mother was asked what she thought the biggest obstacle was to her working

a permanency plan and she stated:

Right now, if I have any plan to go by, it’s going to have to be strictly

everybody has to be doing their job; they can’t leave me laying somewhere for

three weeks and not come back and check on me when they’re told, because

my mind - - I had a car wreck, and the doctor told me I would never be the

same, forget things with me.

Like after three weeks, you come back to my door, I think you’re a

stranger. I don’t live in the nicest places in town. I live in a safe place to me,

where I can keep my kids safe.

Mother was asked if she would be able to parent now, and she replied: “Most

definitely not.... I’m on the verge of having a seizure.” When asked if she thought she

would be able to parent in the future, Mother stated:

Yes, ma’am. My Doctor, when the kids got took out of the home, they said I

needed a mental evaluation. So I went to it. The guy said I was in fair

-8-
condition, I did not need any medicine, I did not need anything, but maybe

counseling on my own.

So I went home to my mother. All he gave me was a business card, and

I gave it to my mother. She said, No, you need some medication. I’m calling

the caseworker. She called the caseworker, and they come and picked the kids

up.

Mother testified that the foster mother would not allow her even to call the

Children. Mother stated: “she threatens me with jail issues.” When asked how many times

she had tried to call the Children, Mother stated: “Numeral, more than a hundred.” When

asked if she had tried to see the Children, Mother stated: “She will not allow that. I’ve not

got in a car and went to her house because she threatens to call the law and stuff on me.”

Mother testified that she has contacted DCS numerous times.

Mother was asked if she knew any reason why the foster parents should not

adopt the Children, and she stated:

Well, she already had them put to sleep. They believe in aesthetics (sic) and

used overstrength and had them put to sleep. Took them for a general

checkup. It was a party for them they had in Georgia, and that’s why we left.

They passed. She said she got so excited because she passed the denial

[sic] checkup at the Erlanger. They had cavities, but she passed. And she

didn’t pass her hearing test right then, but she said she would give her one in

school, too. If anything, it was her ears, not her teeth bothering her. They

went right in to put her to sleep. And hopefully the doctors at Erlanger will

check her ears.

Mother agreed that she had concerns with the medical treatment the Children were receiving

and stated: “I took her to Dr. Lazer. He said his wife had a problem with overreacting to

pain. I don’t know why a doctor would tell me his personal problems, but that’s where their

doctor is now, his wife.”

When asked if she thought the Children were loved and taken care of in the

foster home, Mother stated:

Takes a lot of love to see your children being loved and being not loved, riding

without car seats, falling out of the van on their head. After you fall three

-9-
times, you are picked up, and you’re going to quit being clumsy, as long as

you’re being watched.

She’s fat, she’s overweight, and she has a problem with obesity, and

she’s ashamed of it.

Mother stated: “I have a home for my kids. We’ve been home about 30

minutes, all of us. They know where our home is, when we get there. We stay on the road

traveling. Dad said we are always welcome at home.” Mother acknowledged she was

speaking of a residence off of East Valley Road in Sequatchie County and then stated: “I

don’t go home very often. I’ve been robbed very often staying there on the street.”

Mother admitted that she has not seen the Children since the trial home visit

was terminated. Mother has been in three different jails in Sequatchie County and Bledsoe

County since 2011. Mother stated that she had spent three months in jail since April of 2011.

About being in jail, Mother testified:

I got in the wrong crowd across the street. That’s where I end up, worked in

a Krystal Restaurant, and the family had a problem with that, and they’re

coming every day with the questions. I don’t know why they have a problem.

That’s the backsliding, because they’re the Catholic way home.

Mother testified that while not in jail she stayed in her house which her father

owned. Mother stated: “I go visit and get everything I need. All I would need was a fresh

plate of food, and he sends me on my way.” Mother was asked where she goes when her

father sends her on her way, and she stated: “Back to see him. I take a long tour and go back

and meet up with him.... Where you find a place to calm down at and make it safe.... I was

awarded a motel. I was staying out in the woods.” Mother admitted that she was staying in

the woods in a tent. Mother also admitted that she does not talk to her father very often, but

insisted that he had told her she could “come home whenever I wanted.”

Mother testified that since April of 2011 she has worked cleaning houses and

further stated: “I did that for about three months, and three months of cleaning houses got me

where I was today. I didn’t get picked up for a warrant. Like I said, I was scared to death,

and he took me to jail. So I got a place to stay.” Mother was asked if she thought jail was

a good place to stay and she stated: “No. Jail is not my idea of the place to stay, when you

left methadon clinics, clinical societens (sic), leave the jail after they’ve been charged with

manufacturing meth, then, yeah, I will stay there and do some time.” Mother was asked who

she was staying with that got charged with making meth, and she stated: “I was not staying

with anyone. But you do get rides with them to take my children places, the state does. I sit

-10-
back and watch. That’s why I’m so sick.” Mother then was asked if it was the State’s fault

that she has mental problems and she stated: “Yes, my mom’s condition, can’t take care of

three kids driving downtown. She walked out and she fell apart.”

Mother was asked about having a job and she insisted that she had the ability

to support herself. When asked how she would support herself, Mother stated: “I take a

bath.” Mother was asked how she earns money to feed herself, and she replied: “Through

taxes.” Mother was asked if that was how she would continue to support herself when she

got out of jail, and she stated: “If I’m stole from, yes.”

Mother was asked if the Children should be returned to her immediately and

she stated: “No, sir, I cannot take care of them at this point. I feel another seizure coming

on. If they’re immune to that, they’ll get the same symptoms I have and have a seizure, too,

and have to fight it.” Mother was asked if she was mentally unable to function without her

medication, and she stated: “That’s wrong. The doctor told me it was best for me not to be

on meds.” When asked if she would take her medication if the Children were returned to her,

Mother stated: “If a doctor told me to, yes, I would take medication.”

When asked if she did drugs with Father, Mother stated: “I thought it was

insulin. He smokes it.” Mother admitted that she smoked drugs “[h]owever [Father] give

it to me. He usually give it to me in a hot tube.” Mother was asked if she would go back and

live with Father, and she stated:

No. I stayed with him to take care of his sister’s kid. He had spina bifida, and

he had AIDS set up in his back, so he got nasty. I had to clean it up. I made

it to the hospital where he was dying. I saw the judges walk out of the room,

so I just let him die.

Mother was asked if her living situation had been stable, and she stated: “Yes,

I have been stable since I was seven years old.” Mother was asked if she would be in a

position to take the Children if she were released from jail that day, and she stated: “Yes....

Yes. And I don’t talk to strangers.” Mother, however, agreed when asked that she was not

medically stable. She was asked what she believed the Children needed, and she stated:

As for my children, is to have a mother that can take care of them. Right now

I’m not medically stable, and the doctor would tell you that. I don’t know

why, but I could just have somebody go to the doctor, tell me if I needed help,

to just ask that. And I asked, and no one called help for me.

-11-
As to whether she had ever applied for disability, Mother stated: “Yes, I have.

I had an appointment on the 19th of June to John McMahon, and I come to jail on the 18th.

I had a warrant on me so I was kind of scared, so I decided to go to jail.” Mother was asked

about her testimony that she stayed at Mission for the last year and a half given that her home

wasin Sequatchie County, and she stated: “Because I’m planning to go to Chattanooga State.

And everytime I get in, I get robbed. I don’t even have my own shoes from the jail. I had

to borrow shoes.”

After trial, the Trial Court entered its Termination of Parental Rights and Final

Decree of Complete Guardianship on August 14, 2012 terminating Mother’s parental rights

to the Children after finding and holding, inter alia:

(A) Respondent, [Mother], has failed to comply in a substantial manner

with the statement of responsibilities set out in periodic foster care plans

prepared for and signed by said Respondent, following the subject children

being found to be dependent and neglected by the Juvenile Court of Hamilton

County. Children’s Services has explained to Respondent [Mother], those

reasonable responsibilities, which are directly related and aimed at remedying

the conditions, which necessitate foster care placement. Specifically, one of

the most important tasks of the Respondent’s permanency plan was for her to

continue her mental health treatment all [sic] follow all recommendations as

well as take all prescribed medications and continue medication management.

The mother was also supposed to accept and cooperate with case management

services from Joe Johnson Mental Health Center.

Initially, the Respondent was in substantial compliance with her

permanency plan and the Department placed the subject children back in her

physical custody on a ninety (90) day trial home visit which started on

February [5], 2011. The trial home visit had to be terminated on April 12,

2011 due to the fact that the mother stopped taking her medication and became

violent again. The Respondent has been hospitalized at Moccasin Bend

Mental Health Institute in August 2008 and was diagnosed with Psychotic

Disorder. At the time she was hospitalized in August 2008, the mother was

found walking on the freeway with her two (2) oldest children and was

pregnant with her third child. The mother reported that she thought people at

the shelter were poisoning her food and trying to steal her children. At the

time of her discharge on August 12, 2008, it was recommended that the mother

take Risperdal and that she have follow-up mental health treatment at Joe

Johnson Mental Health Center. Her prognosis was guarded.

-12-
The mother was hospitalized at Moccasin Bend again on December 11,

2009 and was admitted from Joe Johnson. She was referred at that time for

bizarre behavior and the nurse practitioner noted that the mother was under the

belief that she had no mental health issues.

Currently, the Respondent is not in compliance with her plan and has

not visited with the subject children since her trial home visit was terminated on April

12, 2011.

(B) [The Children] have been removed by order of a courtfor a period ofsix (6)

months. The conditions which led to the removal still persist or other conditions persist

which in all probability would cause [the Children] to be subjected to further abuse and

neglect and which, therefore, prevent the children’s return to the care of Respondent.

There islittle likelihood that these conditions will be remedied at an early date so that the

children can be returned to Respondent in the near future. At the time of their removal in

December 2009,themother’smentalillnesswas negativelyaffectingher abilityto parent.

The mother was living with the children in a car at the time of the referral and the

Department ofChildren’s Services and SoddyDaisyPolice Departmentworked together

to furnish the family with a motel room. The mother also failed to comply with

preventative services and the children had to be removed. At one point in the case, the

motherwas doing reallywell andwasin substantial compliancewith herpermanencyplan

and the children were placed on a trial home visit with her on February 5, 2011. Shortly

thereafter, the mother started to deteriorate again. She lost her job; got evicted from her

housing; ceased taking her prescribed medications; and was arrested and incarcerated for

assaulting family members. The children were removed from the trial home visit and

placed back into their foster home on April 12, 2011. Since that time, the mother has not

visited with the children or paid any child support and is currently homeless and

unemployed. These issues, along with herfailure to maintain hermental health treatment

make the mother unable to provide the subject children with a safe and suitable living

environment.

4. Pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-113(i), it is for the best interest of the subject child

and the public that all of the parentalrights of Respondent,[Mother], to [the Children] be

forever terminated and that the custody, control and complete guardianship of said child

should now be awarded to theState ofTennessee,DepartmentofChildren’sServiceswith

the right to place said child for adoption and to consent to any adoption in loco parentis,

in that

(a) Respondent,[Mother],failed tomake anyadjustmentof circumstance, conduct

or conditions to make itsafe and in the children’s best interest to be placed in the care of

-13-
said Respondent. The mother did make significant progress for a while, but during her

trialhome placementin 2011,stopped taking hermedication to treathermentalillness and

began a rapid decline. Since the trial home visitwith the children ended in April 2011, the

mother has had no contact with the children or Department and her current living

conditions are unsafe.

(b) Respondent, [Mother], failed to effect a lasting adjustment of her

circumstances after the state has made reasonable effortsto help her forsuch duration of

time that lasting adjustment does not reasonably appear possible. The Department has

offered the mother a large variety of services to help her be able to safely parent and the

motherhasrepeatedlyshown thatshe is unable to hold ittogetherfor anysignificantperiod

of time.

(c) Respondent, [Mother], has not maintained regular visitation or other contact

with the children.

(d) A change of caretakers and home islikely to have a highly negative effect on

the children. The children are currently placed in an adoptive home and have been placed

there since December 11, 2009. The children were removed from the foster home when

they were placed back in their mother’s physical custody from February [5], 2011 until

April12, 2011. The children were returned to the foster home on April 12,2011 and have

been there ever since.

(e) Respondent [Mother], or someone living with them, has shown brutality,

abuse or neglect toward the children. Due to the mother’s failure to take her prescribed

medications at the time ofremoval, the children were living with herin a carin the winter.

(f) Respondent [Mother’s] present mental or emotional status would be

detrimental to the children or prevent theRespondentfrom effectively providing safe and

stable care and supervision for the child. The Respondent functions well when she is on

hermedication, butsince April 2011,she has not been taking hermedication orreceiving

mental health treatment and she is currently homeless and jobless.

Mother appeals to this Court the termination of her parental rights to the Children.

Discussion

Although notstated exactly assuch, Mother raises one issue on appeal: whether the Trial

Court erred in finding and holding that DCS made reasonable effortsto assist Mother while the Children

were in State custody.

-14-
Our Supreme Court reiterated the standard of review for cases involving termination of

parental rights stating:

This Court must review findings of factmade by the trial court de novo upon the

record “accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the finding, unless the

preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). To terminate

parentalrights, a trial courtmust determine by clear and convincing evidence not only the

existence of at least one of the statutory groundsfor termination but also that termination

is in the child’s best interest. In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539, 546 (Tenn. 2002) (citing

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(c)). Upon reviewing a termination of parental rights, this

Court’s duty, then, is to determine whether the trial court’s findings, made under a clear

and convincing standard, are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

In re F.R.R., III, 193 S.W.3d 528, 530 (Tenn. 2006).

InDepartmentofChildren’s Services v.D.G.S.L.,thisCourtdiscussed the relevantburden

of proof in cases involving termination of parental rights stating:

It is well established that “parents have a fundamental right to the care, custody, and

control oftheir children.” In reDrinnon,776S.W.2d 96, 97 (Tenn.Ct.App.1988)(citing

Stanley v.Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31L.Ed. 2d 551 (1972)). “However, this

right is not absolute and parentalrights may be terminated if there is clear and convincing

evidence justifying such termination underthe applicable statute.” Id. (citing Santosky v.

Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1982)).

Termination of parental or guardianship rights must be based upon a finding by

the court that:(1)the groundsfortermination of parental or guardianship rights have been

established by clear and convincing evidence; and (2) termination of the parent’s or

guardian’s rights is in the best interests of the child. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(c).

Before a parent’s rights can be terminated, it must be shown that the parent is unfit or

substantial harm to the child will result if parental rights are not terminated. In re

Swanson,2 S.W.3d 180,188 (Tenn.1999);In reM.W.A., Jr.,980 S.W.2d620,622 (Tenn.

Ct. App. 1998). Similarly, before the court may inquire as to whether termination of

parental rights is in the best interests of the child, the court must first determine that the

grounds for termination have been established by clear and convincing evidence. Tenn.

Code Ann. § 36-1-113(c).

Dep’t ofChildren’s Servs. v. D.G.S.L., No.E2001-00742-COA-R3-JV, 2001 Tenn. App. LEXIS 941, at

**16-17 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2001), no appl. perm. appeal filed. Clear and convincing evidence

-15-
supporting any single ground will justify a termination order. E.g., In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539, 546

(Tenn. 2002).

The Trial Court terminated Mother’s parental rights to the Children on the grounds of

substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(2) and

persistent conditions pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(3). As this Court explained in In re:

R.L.F.:

Termination on the ground of substantial noncompliance with the permanency

plan implicatestheDepartment’s obligation to demonstrate thatitmade reasonable efforts

to reunite a childwith his parent. Tenn.CodeAnn.§ 37-1-166(b). Where theDepartment

seeksto terminate parentalrights on a ground thatimplicatestheDepartment[’]sobligation

to use reasonable efforts to make it “possible for the child to return safely to the child’s

home,”Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 37-1-166(a)(2),- 166(g)(2),those reasonable effortsmust be

proved by clear and convincing evidence. In re: B.B., No. M2003-01234-COA-R3-PT,

2004 WL 1283983, at *9 (Tenn.Ct. App.June 9, 2004) (citing In re: C.M.M., 2004 WL

438326, at *7-8). Thus, the Department had the burden to prove by clear and convincing

evidence that it exercised reasonable care and diligence to provide services reasonably

necessary to meet Mother’s needs to assist her to fulfill her obligations under the

permanency plans. In re:Valentine, 79 S.W.3d at 546;In re:C.M.M., 2004 WL 438326

at *8;Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-1-113(c). This burden required that the Department present

sufficient evidence to enable usto conclude, withoutserious orsubstantial doubt, that the

efforts were reasonable under the circumstances. In re: Valentine, 79 S.W.3d at 546; In

re:C.D.B., 37 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2000);see Walton v. Young, 950 S.W.2d

956, 960 (Tenn. 1997).

The goals and requirementssetforth in permanency plansmay not be arbitrary or

unreasonable. To the contrary,theymustbe directed toward remedying the conditionsthat

led to the child’s removal from the parent’s custody. In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d at 547;

In re M.J.B., 140 S.W.3d 643, 656 (Tenn.Ct. App. 2004); In re L.J.C., 124 S.W.3d 609,

621 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

“The success of a parent’s remedial efforts generally depends on the

Department’s assistance andsupport.” In reGiorgiannaH.,205 S.W.3d 508,518 (Tenn.

Ct. App. 2006). Accordingly, the Department’s employees have an affirmative duty to

utilize their education and training to assist parents in a reasonable way to address the

conditions that led to the child’sremoval and to complete the tasks stated in the plan. In

reGiorgiannaH.,205S.W.3d. at519;In re J.L.E.,No.M2004-02133-COA-R3-PT,2005

WL 1541862, at *14 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 2005); In re C.M.M., 2004 WL 438326,

at *7;In re D.D.V., No. M2001-02282-COA-R3-JV, 2002 WL 225891, at *8 (Tenn.Ct.

-16-
App. Feb.14, 2002). This duty exists even if the parent does not ask for assistance. In re

C.M.M., 2004 WL 438326, at *7. The importance ofthe Department’srole in thisregard

has been emphasized by this court on numerous occasions. In re B.L.C., No.

M2007-01011-COA-R3-PT,2007WL 4322068, at* 8 (Tenn.Ct.App.Dec.6,2007)(no

Tenn.R.App.P. 11 application filed);In reC.M.M., 2004 WL 438326, at *7 (stating that

“[i]nmanycircumstances,the successof a parent’sremedial effortsisintertwinedwith the

efforts of the Department’s staff to provide assistance and support”); In re J.A.W., No.

M2007-00756-COA-R3-PT, 2007WL 3332853, at *4 (Tenn.Ct.App.Nov.8, 2007);In

re Randall B., Jr., No. M2006-00055-COA-R3-PT, 2006 WL 2792158, at *5-6 (Tenn.

Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2006).

Reasonable efforts are statutorily defined asthe “exercise of reasonable care and

diligence by the department to provide services related to meeting the needs of the child

and the family.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-166(g)(1) (emphasis added). The factors the

courts are to use to determine reasonableness include: (1) the reasons for separating the

parentsfrom their children,(2)the parents’physicalandmentalabilities,(3)the resources

available to the parents, (4) the parents’ effortsto remedy the conditionsthat required the

removalofthe children,(5)the resources available to the Department,(6)the duration and

extent of the parents’ effortsto addressthe problemsthat caused the children[’]sremoval,

and (7) the closeness of the fit between the conditionsthat led to the initialremoval of the

children, the requirements of the permanency plan, and the Department[’]s efforts. In re

Tif any B., 228 S.W.3d 148, 158-59 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (footnote omitted) (emphasis

added) (citing In re Giorgianna H., 205 S.W.3d at 519).

In re: R.L.F., 278 S.W.3d 305, 315-17 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008).

Additionally, asthisCourtstated in State ofTennessee,DepartmentofChildren’sServices

v. S.M.D.:

The State “must make reasonable efforts to preserve a family before seeking to

terminate parentalrights.” In re: JeremyD.andNathanD.,No.01-A-01-9510-JV-00479,

1996 Tenn. App.LEXIS 292, at **7-8, 1996 WL 257495, at *3 (Tenn.Ct.App.May 17,

1996), no appl. perm. appeal filed. However, “[r]eunification of a family is a two-way

street, and the law does not require DCS to carry the entire burden of this goal.” In re:

R.C.V. and O.V., No.W2001-02102-COA-R3-JV, 2002 Tenn.App.LEXIS 811, at *39,

2002 WL 31730899, at *11 (Tenn.Ct.App.Nov. 18, 2002), no. appl. perm. appealfiled.

State ofTennessee,DepartmentofChildren’sServices v.S.M.D.,200S.W.3d 184,197-98 (Tenn.Ct.App.

2006).

-17-
In her brief on appeal, Mother argues, in large part, that DCS failed to assist her after the

terminated trial home placement, in part, by failing to contact Mother while Mother was hospitalized at

MoccasinBend and “incarcerated at variousinstitutions.” The record showsthat Mother was admitted to

Mocassin Bend when the trial home placement wasterminated because DCS made the phone call to set

it up and also shows Mother was receiving mental health assistance at Mocassin Bend. DCS also set

Mother up for medication management through Joe Johnson. It is unclear what DCS could have done to

assist Mother during Mother’s repeated incarcerations. Furthermore, the record shows that DCS had

difficulty keeping in contact with Mother because Mother did not keep DCS apprised of her whereabouts

or how to reach her and because Mother wasin and out of jail in more than one county. Motherleftsome

voice mail messages for the caseworker, but never left a number where she could be contacted.

The record on appeal shows that the Children were taken into State custody because

Mother was not taking hermedication and Mother and theChildren were living in a car. DCS was aware

ofMother’smentalneeds and took stepsto assistMotherin getting evaluated and appropriatelymedicated.

The record shows that Mother had some family members who also were assisting her, specifically her

mother who was assisting Mother with childcare during the trial home placement. The record also shows

that with DCS’s assistance, Mother made an attempt to work the permanency plans and was successful

for a time. This success led to DCS placing the Children with Mother in the trial home placement.

Unfortunately,the record also showsthatthe duration ofMother’ssuccesswasshort-lived. The trialhome

placement was disrupted and terminated because Mother stopped taking her medication and assaulted

familymembers. The record showsthat the requirements of the permanency plans were targeted toward

remedying the conditions which led to theChildren being taken into State custody. The record showsthat

Mother was able to parent the Children with some assistance when she was taking her medications.

Unfortunately,Mother chose to stop taking hermedication,which rendered her unable to

parent the Children. “Reunification of a family is a two-way street ...” and while Mother carried her

burden for a shorttime,Mother hasremained off of hermedication and has been in and out ofjailmultiple

times since the trial home placement wasterminated. In re: R.C.V. and O.V., No. W2001-02102-COAR3-JV,2002Tenn.App.LEXIS 811, at *39, 2002WL 31730899, at*11 (Tenn.Ct.App.Nov.18,2002),

no. appl. perm. appeal filed. Mother herself admitted that at the time of trialshe was unable to parent the

Children, and the record shows thatsince the trial home placement wasterminated Mother has made no

attempt toward correcting the conditions which led to the Children being taken back into State custody.

Mother has taken no steps to obtain stable employment or housing and instead has engaged in actions

which have led to Mother being incarcerated in multiple jails. Most importantly, Mother continues to

choose to remain off of her medication.

The Trial Court found that grounds for terminating Mother’s parental rights pursuant to

Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113(g)(2) and § 36-1-113(g)(3) had been proven by clear and convincing

evidence. The evidence in the record on appeal does not preponderate against these findings made by the

Trial Court by clear and convincing evidence. The Trial Court also found that clear and convincing

-18-
evidence had been proven that it was in the Children’s best interest for Mother’s parental rights to be

terminated. The evidence in the record on appeal does not preponderate against these findings made by

theTrialCourtbyclear and convincing evidence. TheTrialCourtfurtherfound thatDCSmade reasonable

efforts to help Mother make lasting adjustments to her circumstances and conduct. Given the evidence

before us, we have no “serious or substantial doubt, that [DCS’s] efforts were reasonable under the

circumstances.” In re: R.L.F., 278 S.W.3d at 316. In light of all the evidence in the record before us, the

evidence does not preponderate against these findings made by the Trial Court by clear and convincing

evidence. We, therefore, affirm the termination of Mother’s parental rights to the Children.

Conclusion

The judgment of the TrialCourtis affirmed, and this cause isremanded to the TrialCourt

for collection of the costs below. The costs on appeal are assessed against the appellant, Sheila W.

_________________________________

D. MICHAEL SWINEY, JUDGE

-19-