T en n. C t
. A p p . R

. 1 0 st ates: 1

T hi s C o urt , w i t h t h e con cu r r en ce of a l l j u dg es pa r t i ci pat i n g i n t h e ca s e, ma y a f f i r m, r ev er s e or modi f

y t he ac t i o ns o f

t he t rial co urt b y m em o ran d um o p i nio n w he n a fo rm al o p i nio n w o uld ha ve no p rec ed en t i al value

. W he n a ca se i s d eci d ed b y m em o randum o p i ni o n it shal l be de si gnat ed "M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N , " s hal l not b e p ub l i shed, and s hal l not be ci t ed or r el i ed on for a ny r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e.

T he m o t her had l ef

t t he chi l d wi t h a ba b y si t t er but never r et urned. T he b ab y si t t er not i f i ed t he m o t her’ s si st er, 2
w h o in tur n c o n ta c te d the D e p a rtm e n t.



# IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Brie fs Jun e 24, 200 5 I N 

# T HE 

# M ATTER 

# O F 

# : J. L. Appeal f romthe Juvenile Court for Sumner County No. 69-449; 72- 381 Barry R. Brown, Jud ge

No. M2005- 00286-COA-R3-P T - F iled Augu st 9, 2005
Mother appe als the termination of her parental rights t o her child, J .L

. The trial court terminated the mother’s pa

rental rig hts on the g rounds of abandonme nt, persistenc e of c onditions, and substantial noncompliancewith the permanency plan. The trial court also found the termination of the mother’ s pa re ntal rig hts wa s inthec hil d’ s b e st i ntere st. We aff irm. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Juvenile Court Affi rm ed F RAN K 

## G. C L EME NT 

## , J R 

## ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the c ourt, in which W I L L I AM 

## C. K O CH 

## , J R 

## ., P.J ., M.S., and P ATR I C I A 

## J. C O T T RE LL 

## , J ., joined. C h ar l e s R

. B o b b i t t , J r . , H e n d e r s o n v i l l e , T e n n e s s e e , f o r th e ap p e l l a n t , C

. L. Paul G . Su mme rs , Attorne y Ge ne ral andRe po rt e r; andAmy T. Ma ste r, As sis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ral, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee. M EM ORAN DU M OP IN ION 1 

## The c hild was introduced to the D epartment of Children’s Service s when the mother ’s sister all e g e d th at th e mo th e r w a s a d d ic te d to c r a c k c o c a in e a n d h a d ab a n d o n e d th e c h ild. The 2 

## Depa rtment first place d the child with the mother’s sister. The reafter, themother’s sister g rew wea ry of ca ring for the c hild and gave the child to another c ouple to care for the child. This was doneT he m o t her’ s ap p earance was unexp ect ed b ecause t he m o t her’ s whereab o ut s were unkno wn t o t he D ep art m ent 3 and s he had fai l ed t o co nt act t he D ep art m ent pri o r t o her s ud d en ap p earance at t he heari ng.

S h e a lso info rm e d the c o u rt tha t she ha d re c e n tly g ive n b irth to ye t an o the r c h ild (s inc e a b a n d o n ing the c h ild 4
a t i ssu e a n d m o v ing to O re g o n ). T h e l a te st c h ild w a s in sta te c u sto d y in O re g o n w h ile th is c a se w a s p ro c e e d ing in T enn es s ee.

T h e un k n o w n fath e r is n o t a p a rty to this a p p e a l. 5

H er a t t en dan ce w as a r r an g ed by t h e Sh er i f f for s h e wa s a r es i den t of t h e j ai l du e t o a pr obat i on v i ol at i on of 6 a pr ost i t ut i on ch ar ge.

T he mo t her ’ s bri ef

i s woef ul l y i nadequa t e. Ad mi t t edl y , t he mo t her ’ s conduct , i ncl udi ng t he abdi cat i on of he r 7 p are ntal resp o nsib i l i t i es to he r ch i l d l ea d i ng up t o t he se p ro ce ed i ng s and he r resp o nsib i l i t i es to he r co un sel d uring these p ro c e e d ing s, m a d e it e x c e e d ing ly d iff ic u lt fo r he r co u n se l to p re se n t an e ff e c tive a rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l; n e v e rth e le ss, it is no e x c u se fo r th e d e ficie n c ie s in th e m o the r’s b rie f. 

## -2- without the knowledg e or c onsent of the Department. The De partment c onducted an investigation when it learned of the unauthorized transfe r of custody and learned that one of the adults with whom the mothe r’ s sis te r ha d e ntr us te d the c hil d wa s a

se x off e nd e r. Th us , th e De pa

rtme nt t oo k th e c hil d into protective c ustody

and plac ed him in foster c are . Efforts to reac h the mother th ere af ter w ereu n succe ssful. There forea depe ndency and neg lect petition wa s filed. The a djudicatory hearing w as held on Aug ust 21, 2003. The mother a ppeared at the dependenc y and negle ct hearing , at which time the c ourt appointed c ounsel to repr esent he r. 3 

## Th e mothe r e xplaine d th at sh e ha d move d to Ore g on wi th a ne w h us bandsin c e le a vin g thec hil d w ith the baby sitter. She also admitted that she failed to c ommunicate with the De partment while know ing that the child was in the D epartment’s custody

. She further informed the court that she had a le ng thy history of drug abuse and had bee n incar cer ated on a nu m b er o f o cc asi ons for drugoffe nses and prostitution. The c ourt dec lare d the child depe ndent and ne g lected.

4 

## There afte r, on De cembe r 4 , 2 0 0 3 , the Depa rtment filed a Petition to Terminate Parental Rights of the m other and the unknown fathe r. Mother wa s repr esente d by counsel and attended the 5 

## trial. Following a full evidentiary hearing, thetrial court terminated mother’s pa rental rig hts on the 6 

## g rounds o f abandonment, persistenc e of c onditions, and substantial noncompliance with the permanency

plan and upon a

finding that termination was in the c hild’s best interest. Mother app e a le d c on te nd ingthat th e tria l c ou rt e rre d b y te rminatin g he r pare ntal rig hts “ wh e n s heha d ju st beg un to perform some of the tasks re quired by her Permanenc y

Plan.” 7 

## The re cord be foreus is com p el l i n g an d it fullysupports the trial court’s finding s that the mothe r w ill fu lly faile d to visit he r son du ri ng the fo ur mon ths pr e c e din g the fi lin g of thepe titionto terminate he r parental rig h t s ; s h e fa i l ed to visit the child from the time she dese rted him with the baby sitter until the court suspended visitation on J uly 14, 2004, seven months afte r t he petiti on was filed; she did not see thechild for over eightee n months; and, she did not visit the child even whe nT h e D e p a rtm e n t i n tro d u c e d e v id e n c e tha t t h e y ha d e n d e a v o re d to m a k e a rr a n g e m e n ts fo r t h e m o the r t o visit 8
w ith the c h ild , yet the m o the r fa iled to e x e rc ise v isitatio n . A t tria l th e m o the r a d m itt e d th a t sh e h a d n o t v isited the c h ild b ut cl ai m ed t hat s he had a t t em p t ed to schedule a vi si t
. T he D ep art m ent rebut t ed t he m o t her’ s t est i m o ny wi t h t est i m o ny f r om i t s ca s e mana ger wh o s t at ed t hat wh en s he endea vor ed t o ar r ang e v i s i t at i on t he mo t her decl i ned s t at i ng t hat s he was no t ready f

o r vi si t at i o n. M ot h er i s a me mber of t h e Emm on ak I n di an T r i be i n Al as k a. T h e Emm on ak T r i be i s a l s o a c or p o rat i on 9
or g an i ze d u n der f

ede r al l aw . T h e cor por at i on ow n s l an d t h at pr odu ce s a h an ds ome i n come . As a me mber of t h e t r i be ( corpora t i on) t he mo t her i s en t i t l ed t o a proport i onat e s har e of i t s ne t i ncome. 

## -3- the Depa rtment attempted to makevisitation arr ang ements. The re cord also establishes that she had 8 

## a protra cted history

of eng ag ing in c rimi n al behavior, including prostitution and drug abuse, that resulted in multiple incarc erations, the most recent of w hich was during thetrial of this matter. The re c or d also e sta

bli sh e s th e fa c t th at a lth ou g h th e mothe r h a d n ot b e e n e mpl oy e d duringthesix mon ths pr e c e din g thefi lin g of thi s p e tition , she re g ula

rl y re c e ive d qua

rt e rl y c omp e ns atio n ine xce ss of $10,000 fr om which she c ould have provided support for the child but willfully failed to do so. 9 

## We also concur with the t rial court that thereis clear and convinc ing e videncethat it is i n the child’s best interest to terminatethe mother’s pa rental rig hts. F ind ingno e rr or , w e a ff

irm th e jud g me nt o f thetria l c ou rt in all r e sp e c ts. Cos ts o f thi s c aus e ar e a s s e s s e da g a i n s tth e m o th e r f o r w h i c he x e c u t i o n m ay i s s u e i f n e c e s s ary.

___________________________________ FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR ., J UDGE