### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nuary 5, 200 4
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE, DE PA RTM ENT OF CH ILDR EN’ S SERVI CES v . BARBARA MICHE LLE DAVIDSON, ET AL 

### .

Ap pe a l f ro m th e Juve nil e Cou rt

fo r Wh ite Cou nty No

. J U- 1 5 0 1 S am m i e E

. Be n n i n gfi el d , J r. , J u d ge

No. M2003-02601-COA- R3-PT - Filed F ebrua ry 2, 2004

The Juvenile Court of Whi te County terminated the pare ntal righ t s o f t h e n atura l pare nts of two y oung g irls. The Fa t h er s u ffered judg ment by default and did not appeal. Par ental rig hts of the Mother we re terminated after trial on the m erits and she appeals. We affirm the judgme nt of the trial
c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Juvenile Court Aff irm ed and Rem anded

W I L L I AM B. C A IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which P A T R IC IA J . C O T T RE LL , and F R ANK G. C L EME NT , J R ., J J ., joined. Robert Steven Randolph, Cookeville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, B arba

ra Miche lle Davidson.

Eddie Da vidson, L akeside , Michig an, Pro Se.

Sharon Patricia D ata, Gua rdian Ad Litem, Sparta, Tenne ssee, Pro Se.

P a u l G

. S u m m e r s , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l & R e p o r t e r ; Ju a n G

. V i l l a s e n o r , A s s i s t a n tA t t o r n e y G e ne ra l; An ne Au sti n, Coo ke vil le , T e nn e s s e e , f o r th ea p p e l l e e , T e n n e sse e De pa

rt me nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s.
OP IN ION
The minor child, A.T.D ., was born to Ba rbar a Miche lle Davidson and Eddie Gene Davidson on April 12, 1996, prior to their mar riag e. The minor ch i l d , L

. N.D., wa s born to them April 28, 19 98 , s ub se qu e nt t o th e ir ma rria g e . E dd ie Ge ne Dav id so n d oe s n ot c on te st t e rm inatio n o f h is pare ntal rig hts a nd has not a ppeale d. Ba

rbar a Michelle Davidson does not seriouslycontest g rounds for termination of her pa

renta l rig hts but focuses her appea l instea d upon the finding of the trial c ourt that termination of her

pare ntal rig hts was in the best interest of the minor children. Car eful re view-2-

of the re cord indicates t hat s he has no substantial basis for contesting the finding of the trial court that g rounds for te rmination of her pare ntal rig hts were established by clea r and c onvin c in g e v ide nce.
Th e c on dit ion s tha t bro ug ht ab ou t the re mov a l of the c hil dr e n fr om the c us tod y of Mic he lle Davidson and the ir place ment in the custody of DCS are bes t described in the Protective Custody Orde r ente red on the date of such re moval, J anuary

22, 2002.

I t appea ring to the C ourt from the sworn alleg ations of the Petition filed in the above- sty led matter that there is probable cause to believe that the a bove-named ar e depende nt and negle cted c hildren in that the mother of the above -name d children, Michelle Da vidson, was cha rg ed with Reck l ess Endange rment, Possession of Schedule I I

drug s and Criminal I ntent to Ma n u fa cture methamphetamines. The office rs found items consistent with the manufact u re of methamphe tamine in the home wher e the sa id minor children were residing with their mother and Mr . Br ent Tolbert, a c onvicted fe lon. The De partment orig inally went out to the home in the proce ss of completing an investi g ation on a refer ral rece ived by the DCS alleg ing that the sa id m ino r c hil dr e n w e re of te n le ft un su pe rv ise d w hil e the ir mo th er, Ms. Davidson slept t hroug hout the day and that the children wer e sent outside to collect paper to burn for he at and that the home was without elec tricity

. I n ad d i t i on, the
a lle g a tio ns inc lud e d c on c e rn that Ms. Da vid so n wa s us ing ill e g a l dr ug s. Th e DC S reque sted an off

icer escort in an eff

ort to e nsure the Case Mana g er’ s safe ty and we nt out to visi t the home. DCS determined upon en tering the home that ther e wa s elec tricity , but a lack of

plum b i n g. Ms. Davidson did admit to smoki ng meth two day s prior with some frie nds. The Case Manag er observed severa l mason jars in the
c abin e ts a ndre c e ive d in c on sis te nt ans we rs a s to the re a so n a ndpu rp os e fo r the jars

. Th e Ca se Ma na g e r a lso ob se rv e d a ma so n ja

r, half- fu ll o f a c e ton e , w hic h M s. Da vid so n s ta te d w a s u se d to c le a n p a int of f o f the br us he s. Th e re wa s a n a dd iti on a l, smaller jar that also contained ace tone, M s. Davidson st ated that the smaller jar ma de the ac etone e asier to pour

. The Case Manag er also observe d a bottle of butane in the living room and sever al batterie s that looked like car batterie s throug hout the house. Of further c oncern, wer e t h e gu n s i n the home, one loa ded and possibly 15
a c c e ssi ble to the c hil dr e n. Th e DC S, a ft e r c omp le tin g the ins pe c tio n of the ho me prepa red a voluntary

plan of a ction with M s

. Davidson; howeve r, the off icer s later obtained a se arc h war

rant a nd afte r com p l et i n g their investig ation of the home,
c ha rg e d w ith Ms. Da vid so n a s me nti on e d a bo ve . ( sic ) M s. Da vid so n w a s p la c e d in ja il on a $30 ,0 00 bo nd a nd the c hil dr e n ha ve be e n tak e n into the c us tod y of the DC S and plac ed with re latives pending the Preliminary Hea ring . The father of the abovenamed c hildren, Eddie Da vidson, was contac ted re g arding the re moval of the children, but he sta t ed t hat he would be unable to take custody of the c hildren and that he had a

pproxi mately

23 day s in jail that he needed t o serve . That the aboven a me d c h il d r e n ar e s u b

je c te d to a n im me d iate th r e a t to th e c h il d r e n ’ s h e a lth a nd safe ty to the extent that delay

for a hearing w ou l d be likely

to result in severe or irrepa rable harm a nd there is no less dr astic alternative to r emoval available which-3-

co u l d re as o n ab l y a n d a d e q u at el y p ro t ec tt h e c h i l d ’s h ea l th an d s af et y p en d i n g a preliminary

hearing; that it is contrary to [ L .’s] welfar e at this time to remain in the
car e, custody , or control of her pare nt due to her mother being curr ently incar cer ated on char g es of Reckless e ndang erme nt, possession of Schedule I I drug s, and Criminal I nte nt t o M a nu fa c tur e Me thamph e ta min e . In a dd iti on , M s. Da vid so n a dmi tte d to
smo kin g me th t wo da y s p ri or to the DC S in ve sti g a tio n. There we re c omp on e nts
c omm on ly

a sso c ia te d withthe ma nu fa c tur e of me thamph e ta min e fo un d in the ho me wher e the said minor child lives with her mother and therefor e a conce rn that there may have be en a me t h l ab i n the home which c an be e x plosive and tox ic,
e nd a ng e ri ng the c hil d. I t is a lso c on tr ary to [A.D .’ s] wel fa re a t this t ime to r e ma in in the car e, custody , or control of her pa rent due to [ rea sons identical t o those listed abov e for [L .D.]. I t is contrary to the welfa

re of [A.] and [L .] t o be plac ed in the custody of thei r fa t h er because he is without a permanent home a nd states that he cannot c are for the c hildren. The lac k of continued r easona ble ef forts in the above

sty le d matt er is re a so na

ble du e to the mothe r c ur re ntl y be ing inc arc e rate d a nda lso be ing c ha

rg e d w ith the c ha

rg es liste d a

bo ve a ndthe c omp on e nts c omm on ly
a sso c iated wi th the m a nu fa c tur e of me th b e ing fo un d inthe ho me , a s w e ll a s Ms

. Da vid so n’ s a dmi tte d me th u sa g e a ndthe fathe r’ s in abil ity a nd /or la c k o f d e sir e to
car e for his children.

These dang erous conditions undisputed by the Mother, and the association with the fe l o n , Brent To lbe rt , le d to the c hil dr e n’ s r e mov a l a ndthe e ve ntu a l te rm inatio n o f h e r p are nta l r ig hts

. PERMANENCY PL ANS

Th e fi rs t Pe rm a ne nc y

Pla n, e nte re d in to o n F e br ua ry 11 , 2 00 2, wa s a n am bi tious on e wi th the p e r man e n c y g o a l b e in g to r e tu r n th e c h il d r e n to th e ir M o th e r

. T h is f ir s t Pe r man ency

Plan
o b s e r v e d t h a t“ M r s

. D a v i d s o n ap p e ar s t o l o v e h e r c h i l d r e n a n d w a n t w h a ti s b e s tf o r t h e m

. ” It further appea red that Mrs. Davidson was in g ood phy sical health, appear ed to bond with the childre n, and that the c hildren bonded with eac h other a nd wer e likewise in g ood phy sical hea lth. The desire d outcome wa s “M rs. Davidson will succe ssfully complete A & D treatment and will refr ain from
us ing ill e g a l dru gs. Mrs . D a vid so n w ill no t a sso c ia te wi th o the rs wh o u se ill e g a l dr ug s. Mr s. Davidson will have random drug scre ening s.” The e x pecte d achie vement date under this plan wa s J uly 19, 2002. On April 18, 2002, both Mother a nd Father attended t he first re view of the Permane ncy Plan. Whil e the pe rm a ne nc y g oa l of re turnin g the c hil dr e n to the ir ho me re ma ine d the g oa l of the plan, it was found that the children ne eded to r emain in foster car e, and that, while the c h i l d ren had completed a ll tasks assigne d to them in the Permanenc y Plan, no task assig ned to t h e M o t h er had been c omp l et ed an d that their prog ress wa s marg inal. The pe riodic re view summary listed the fo llo wi ng a s b arrie rs to a c hie vin g the de sir e d o utc ome s o f the [ L .D .’ s] pa re nti ng plan: p ro ble ms noted wer e “Mothe r’s pe nding c riminal char g es, lac k of housing , employ ment - has not completed-4-

pa re nti ng c la sse s. ” I t w a s f

urthe r o bs e rv e d th a t bo th M r. a ndMr s. Da vid so n ne e de d to ma ke “ dr a sti c strides for the ir children.” The ne x t review date wa s set for Oc tober 18, 2002. Much happe ned betwe en the origina l Permanenc y Plan of Februa

ry 11, 2002 and January

13, 2003 wher e a r evised pa

renting plan was adopted. While the re cord indicates persistent and ne ar exhaustive efforts by

DCS t o as s i s t Mrs. Davidson, her rec ord indicate s continued drug abuse, appar ently

succe ssful eff

orts to defe at drug t es ting by a proc ess of c onsuming lar g e quantities of water prior to the test, cont i n u i n g dece ption as to her chr onic use of me thamphetamine, a nd continued assoc iation with drug users including the ve ry person involved with her in the methamphetamine ope ration in the first place

. Her continued drug use re sulted in revocation of her probation, and she was re turned to jail on J uly 16, 2002 and re mained ther e until March 19, 2003.

On J anuary

13, 2003, the re vised Permane ncy Plan was adopted with dua l goa ls of returning the childre n to the pare nt and alternatively adoption. The re ason for the cha ng e in permanenc y g oal
wa s la c k o f c omp lia nc e by the pa re nt w ith the fi rs t Pe rm a ne nc y Pla n. On F e br

ua ry 26 , 2 00 3, DC S filed a P e ti ti o n to te r mi n a te th e p ar e n ta l r ig h ts o f b o th th e F a th e r a n d th e M o th e r o n th e b a s is of abandonme nt, nonsupport, and fa ilure to comply with Permanenc y

Plan.

The termination hearing was he ld May 13, 2003, with case worke r Jennifer F orre ster testify ing in c onformity

with her fina l Quarte rly

Prog ress Report of April 17, 200 3 , wh ere in she observe d:

Ms. Davidson was release d from the White CountyJ ail on 3/19/2003. Ms. Davidson obtained an alcohol and drug assessment on 3/31/03, and it was re commended that she attend intensive outpatient treatment for 8 wee ks. Ms. Davidson wa s supposed to beg in these cla sses on 4/1/03, h o wever, she state d that her c ar ha d burned. O n 4/12/03, Ms. Davidson s t at ed t h at s he would beg in her a lcohol and drug treatment prog ram at the Wellness C en t er i n L ivingston, and that she had found a ride to the cl a s s es. Ms. Davidson complete d a par enting assessment while she was inca rce rate d,
a ndsh e is r e c e ivi ng pa

re nti ng c la sse s in he r h ome a t th is t ime . M s. Da vid so n is living with her s i s t er i n l aw in Livingston. Ms. Davidson nee ds to complete her
a lc oh ol an d d ru g tr e a t m e n t

. M s

. D a v i d s o n n e e d s t o o b t a i n e m p l o y m e n t

. M s. Davidson has c ontinued to associate w ith persons known for drug use, despite the require ment on her pe rmane ncy plan that she not as s o ci ate with persons convicted of dr ug of fe ns e s o r kno wn dr

ug us e rs

. At the hea

ring of May

13, 2003, afte r 16 months of on-g oing de cept i o n , M s . Davidson testified:
Q. Mrs. Davidson, if I und er s tand y our testimony , y ou are say ing that p ri or to the re moval of y our childre n and up throug h y our inca rce ration in J uly

of 2 0 0 2 t h a tyo u w e r e u s i n g u p t o a g r a mo f m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e e v e r y d a y? A. Ye s, ma ’am.-5- Q. An d y ou g ot the me thamph e ta min e fr om B re nt T olb e rt ? A. I wo uldrathe r n ot ans we r that. Q. I would ask the Court to order her to a nswer. THE COURT: Answer

the question. A. Ye s, ma ’am. MR. AU STIN: B re nt T olb e rt a ctu all y coo ke d a ndwh a t I wo uldc a ll
ma nu fa c tur e me thamph e ta min e . Co rr e c t? A. Ye s, ma ’am. Q

. J ust prior and o n Ja n u ar y 2 2 n d

. . . We ll , a c tu a ll y

I th in k it w a s the 1 9 th that they

wer e ac tually

place d in foster c are , but in J anuary of 2002 whe n the
c hil dr e n w e re pla c e d in fo ste r c are , th e c hil dr e n a nd y ou we re in the ho me wi th h im while he wa s manufac turing methamphetamine, w ere n’t y ou? A. No. My

kids stay ed at my

fathe r’s most of the time and I would take them with me every

now and then. Q. Yo u to ok

the m to the ho me wh e re he c oo ke d me th? Rig ht? A. Ev e ry

no w a ndthe n, y e s. Q. We l l , b as i ca l l y

y o u d i d n ’t d o an y t h i n g t o co m p l y wi t h the per

manenc y plan in Fe bruary

or the fir st o f March. It wasn’t until April that y ou started doing
a nythi ng . I sn ’t

that c or re c t? A. Ye s, ma ’am. Q. You went f

or an A & D assessment in April of 2002, didn’t y ou? A. Ye s, ma ’am. Q. An d y ou tol d th e pe rs on wh o d id the a sse ssm e nt that y ou hadon ly
us e d me thamph e ta min e on e (1 ) t ime . I sn ’t that c or re c t? A. Ye s, ma ’am. Q. And bec ause y ou lied to her, y ou wer e scheduled for low intensityout patie nt t re a tme nt. I sn ’t

that c or re c t? A. Ye s, ma ’am. Q. And y ou didn’t complete that tre atment, did y ou? A. No. Q. You wer e using the whole t i m e y ou wer e in that treatment, were n’t y ou? A. Ye s, ma ’am. Q. You wer e passing all t h e drug sc ree ns that entire time up until J une a ndJuly of 20 02 . I sn ’t

that c or re c t? A. Ye s, ma ’am. Q

. Did y o u u s e s o me th in g to p a s s th o s e d ru g s c r e e n s w h il e y o u w e re u s i n g? A. No. I

just drank a lot of water. Q. But y ou fig ured out a way that y ou could beat the urine drug scre ens a nd it w o u l d n ’ t s h o w t h a t y o u w e r e u s i n g m e t h w h e n y o u a c t u a l l y w e r e u s i n g it. Cor re c t? A. Ye s, ma ’am.-6- Q. Since y ou wer e re l ease d from jail on Marc h 19, 2003, y ou have admitted to Ms. For

rester taking a Hy drocodone pill that was not pre scribed to y ou. Cor re c t? A. Ye s, ma ’am. Q. And y ou know that is illega l, don’t y ou? A. Ye s, ma ’am. Q. And y ou know that that is a n abuse of an a ddictive drug , don’t y ou? A. Yes, ma’ am. I

had a ba d toothache. Q. Th a t ha

pp e ne d in Ma

rc h o f 2 00 3. Cor

re c t? A. Ye s, ma ’am. Q. So, when y ou testified earlier that the la st tim e y ou had used a n illega l drug was Aug u s t 29, 2002, that is not corre ct. The la st tim e wa s Marc h of 2003. Cor re c t? A

. Y e s , s i n c e yo u p u ti tt h a tw a y. Q

. Y o u r

e x s i s t e r
- i n
- l a w M r s

. W h i t e , t h e y h a v e a s m a l l h o m e , d o n ’ tt h e y? A. Th re e (3 ) b e dr oo ms. Q. Th re e (3 ) b e dr oo ms. Th e y ha ve fo ur

(4 ) kids . Co rr e c t? A. Five ( 5). Q. F ive (5 ) kids wh o li ve the re in the ho me wi th the m? A. Two (2) of them g oes to their mother e very other we ek. Q. Okay . But ther e ar e five (5 ) k i d s living in that home and y our ex sister-in-law and her

husband. So, that is se ven (7) people living in the home without y ou the re . Co rr e c t? A. Uh-huh. Q. I n ju st thr e e (3 ) b e dr oo ms? A. They

are building on. The y

have a lmost got it finished. Q. Are they

building on for

y ou? A. No. Q. Be cause y ou don’t plan to continue living there , do y ou? A. No.

As for the Mother’s c ontinued association with known drug users and felons Mrs. Forre ster testified without dispute:

Q. Since her

rele ase f

rom jail i n Marc h of 2003, have y ou had
conver sations with her re g arding people that she is associating with? A. Yes, I

have. Q. Okay . Tell us about those conve rsations please

. A. When Mrs. Davidson was in jail, she st ated that she had a pen pa l who
was a lso incarc erated in another county . I

advised Mrs. Da v i d s on that her pe rm a ne nc y

plan s ta te d th a t sh e wa s n ot t o a sso c ia te wi th kno wn dr ug us e rs

. Q. L et me interr

upt. I s this pen pal in M rs

. Da v idson’s opinion a drug user?-7- A. Ye s. Q. Okay . Go ahe ad. A. When she was out of jail, she told me on a fe w occ asions that she wa s s e e in g h im

a n d th a t h e w a s c o mi n g b y to v is it h e r a n d th a t th e y

w e r e h a v ing
conver sations. I

advised he r ag ain that s h e wa s not to associate with known drug
u s er s , and she stated that they wer e just friends. How ever , she wa s stating that he was taking her to mee t his grandmother and he was driv i n g her a round on the
we e ke nd s.
So it i s that the rec ord in this case shows, not by just clea r and convincing evidenc e, but by
e vid e nc e that is e sse nti a lly un dis pu te d th a t: 1. The c hildren we re initially taken from Mrs. Davidson in a home without plumbi ng that was primarily dedicated to meth manufa cture and use. 2. Throug hout th e period affe cted by the first Permane ncy

Plan, while J ennife r F orre ster of DCS was doing everything reasona ble t o fac ilitate the Mother’s visitation with the children, the m o t h er co ntinued to consume daily doses of metha mphetamine and c ontinued to deny such usag e. 3. He r c on tin ue d u se of dr ug s r e su lte d inre vo c a tio n o f h e r p ro batio n a ndhe r r e turn to ja il. 4. Af

te r h e r r e le a se fr om j a il s he c on tin ue d h e r a sso c ia tio n w ithkn ow n d ru g us e rs

. 5. Mrs. Davidson has pa id nothing toward t he support of t he children since the time they wer e remove d from her

custody in J anuary

of 2002.

I n its final order t erminating the parental rights of Mi chelle Davidson, the t rial court found that clea r and c onvincing evidenc e had e stablished:

B ar b ar a M ic h e ll e M ab e D a v id s o n h a s n o t c o n trib u te d to th e s u p p o r t o f the children since children w ere place d in Petiti oner’ s custody on J anuary

22, 2001. She has not support[ed] her c hildren in any meaning ful way

. During the times she was employ ed, she did not contribute any of the money

she ea rned towa rds the support of her children. Ba rbar a Mich el l e Mabe Davidson wa s advised on F ebrua ry 14, 2002 and J anuary 1 3 , 2 0 0 3 t hat willful failure to visit or willful failure to contribute to the
su pp ort of

the c hil dr e n w a s g ro un ds fo r t e rm inatio n o f p are nta l r ig hts

.

. . . . The Defendants Ba

rbar a Mi chelle Mabe Davidson and Eddie Gene D avidson ha ve the re fo re aba nd on e d [A .T .D .] a nd[L .N .D .] in that th e y ha ve wi llf ull y faile d to vis it a nd /or wi llf ull y faile d to c on tr ibu te to the su pp ort or make re a so na

blepa y me nts towards the support of said childre n for more than four (4) consec utive months prior to the filing of

this P etition or incarc eration. The c hildren we re r emoved [from] the p ar ents, Ba rbar a Miche lle Mabe Davidson and Eddie Gene Davidson, as the result of a Petition filed i n J uvenile Court-8-

in which the childre n wer e found to be depende nt and negle cted as define d by T.C.A. 37-1-102 a nd the childre n wer e plac ed in DCS custody

. This Court found at that time that the DCS made rea sonable e fforts to preve nt remova l of the c hildren or the circ u m s t ance s of the childre n’s situation prevente d rea sonable e fforts from being made prior to the children’ s remova l. For a period of four (4) mon t h s fol lowing
remova l, DCS made reasona ble efforts t o assist the pare nts, Bar bara Michelle Mabe Davidson and Eddie Gene Davidson to e stablish a suitable home for the childre n, but the par ents made no r easona ble ef forts to provide a

s u i t ab l e home and have demonstrated a

lack of conce rn for

the childre n to such a de gre e that it appea rs un lik e ly that B arb ara

Mic he lle Ma

be Da vid so n or Ed die Ge ne Da vid so n wi ll be able to p ro v i d e a suitable home for the childre n at an e arly date. The ref

ore, the D e f e n d a n ts h a v e ab a n d o n e d [A

. T

. D

. ] a n d [L

. N

. D

. ]. Th e De fe nd a nt, B arb ara

Mic he lle Ma

be Da vid so n, ha s n ot s ub stan tia lly
c omp lie d w ith the pr ov isi on s o f the pe rm a ne nc y plans . M s. Da vid so n is re qu ir e d to
co m p l et e a n A& D a s s es s m en tan d tre at m en t , co m p l et e m en t a l h ea l t h co u n s el i n g, complete pa

renting classes, submit to random dru g scre ens and r emain drug fre e, re so lve c ri min a l c ha

rg e s, a nd ma int a in s ta

ble inc ome a nd

ho us ing wi th a

pp ro pria te utilit ies. These require ments ar e re asonabl[y ] related to re medy ing the conditions that nece ssitate foster c are . Ms. Davidson made no attempt to comply with her perma nency

plan u n t il April 2002, when she started A& D treatment and par enting classes, but did not co m p lete them. I n J une of 2002 she had two drug scre ens that
we re po sit ive fo r m e thamph e ta min e s. She has no t c omp le te d me nta l he a lth counseling

. She has not established stable inc ome. Ms. Davidson’s probation was
v i o l at ed d u e to h er d ru g u s age

. S h e wa s i n ca rc er at ed fr o m J u l y 1 5 , 2 0 0 2 t h ro u gh July 22 , 2 00 2. Af

te r s he wa s r e le a se d, P eti tio ne r e nc ou ra g e d M s. Da vid so n to complete h e r

p a r enting classes and A& D treatment. Ms. Davidson has not completed them. Ms. Davidson did not visit reg ularly wi t h h er chil dren during the month of Aug ust 2002. She claimed it was because she was working for he r father. How ever she fa iled to provide proof of employ ment or income and when Pet i t i o n er m ade a daytime home visit, Ms . Davidson was not w orking , but r ather was at home with her boy friend. Ms. Da vidson was ag ain incar cer ated on Augu s t 3 0 , 2 002. DCS made
rea sonable e fforts to assist M s. Davidson in comply ing w ith the permane ncy plan by
re fe rring Ms. Da vid so n to se rv ic e pr ov ide rs , p la cing in h ome se rv ic e s in he r h ome a ndby pa y ing fo r p ortio ns of

the se rv ic e s. Ba rbar a Miche l l e M abe Davidson was a dvised on Fe bruary 14, 2002 and J anuary 13, 2003 that failure to c omply with the perma nency plans was g rounds for te rm inatio n o f p are nta l r ig hts

.

. . . . The c hildren have been remove d from the custody of their pa rents for more than s ix (6 ) m on ths

.-9- The c o n d it io n s w h ic h le d to th e r e mo v a l o f th e c h il d r e n f

r o m th e h o me of the ir pa re nts sti ll exist a nd oth e r co nd iti on s exist wh ic h in a ll p ro ba bil ity wo uldc a us e the childre n to be s ubject to further abuse and/or neglec t, making it unlikelythat the children could be returne d to e ither pare nt in the near future. After the remov al of the childre n, Ms. Davidson continued to abuse me thamphetamines, re sulting in her being incar cer ated. Had she complied with her r ules of probation she would not have been inc arc erated. She had not re medied a n y o f the conditions that cause d the chil d re n t o come into foster car e. B arba

ra Miche lle Mabe D avidson had started A& D treatment several times, but has never completed A& D treatment. She admitted to taking hy drocodone , which was not presc ribed for her, in Marc h 2003. She continues to associate with drug users. She still does not have a dequate living
arr ang ements or the a

bilityto support her ch i l d re n

. Eddie Ge ne Da vidson has
aba nd on e d th e c hil dr e n. He ha s ma de no e ff ort to pr ov ide the c hil dr e n a su ita ble home. Th e re is l itt le lik e li ho od that the se c on dit ion s w ill be re me die d at a n e arl y date so that the c hildren ca n be re turned to either pare nt in the near

future. Th e c on tin uatio n o f the pa re nt o r g ua

rd ia n an d c hil d r e la tio ns hip g re a tly diminis hes the c hild’s chanc e of an ea rl y i n t eg ration into a stable a nd perma nent home. Ba

rbar a Miche lle Mabe D avidson and Eddie G ene D avison h av e n o t made an adjustment of circ umstances, c onduct or c onditions as to make it in the children’s best interest to re turn home in the for esee able f uture. Ba rbar a Michelle Mabe Davidson and Eddie Gene Davidson use of alc ohol or controlled substanc es re nder the m consistently unable to ca

re f or the c hildren. B arb ara Mic he lle Ma

be Da vid so n a ndEd die Ge ne Dav ids on ha ve no t paid
a re asonable portion of the children’ s substit ute phy sical ca re and maintenanc e whe n financ ially

able to do so. B arb ara Mic he lle Ma

be Da vid so n a ndEd die Ge ne Da vid so n h a ve no t pai d ch ild support consistentlywith the child support g uidelines promulg ated by the Depa rtment pursuant to T.C.A. 36-5- 101.
We ag ree with the trial judg e that all of the se fa cts are established in the recor d by clea r and convincing evidenc e.

THE B EST I NTEREST OF TH E CHI L DREN The primary

thrust of the appe al by

Michelle Davidson is that even if c lear and convinc ing evidenc e esta

blishes gr ounds for termination of her pa renta l rig hts, the Court should not t ake suc h
a c tio n b e c a us e c le ar and c on vin c ing e vid e nc e do e s no t e sta bli sh that su c h te rm inatio n is in the be st interest of the children.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(i) de scribes the standard f or dete rmining w hether te rm inatio n is in the be st i nte re sts of the c hil d insu c h c a se s:-10- (I ) In d e te rm ini ng wheth e r t e rm inatio n o f p are nta l or g ua rd ia ns hip rig hts is in t he best int ere st of t he child pursuant to t his part, the court
s h al l co n s i d er , b u ti s n o tl i m i t ed t o , t h e f o l l o wi n g: (1) Whether the parent or g uardia n has made such an a djustment of circ umstance, conduct, or conditions a s to ma ke it sa fe an d i n t he child’s best intere st to be in the home of the pa rent or g uardia n; (2) Whether

the par ent o r gu ardian has fa iled to effe ct a lasting adjustment after

rea sonable e ffort s by

available social ser vices ag encie s for such dur atio n o f t i m e that lasting adjustment does not
rea sonably

appea r possible; (3) Whether

the par ent or g uardia n has maintained r eg ular visitation or other c ontact with the child; (4) Whether

a mea ningf

ul relationshi p has otherw ise bee n established betwe en the pa rent or g uardia n and the c hild; (5 ) T he e ff

e c t a c ha ng e of

c are take rs a nd ph y sica l e nv ir on me nt i s likely to have on the c hild’s emotional, psy cholog ical and me dical condition; (6) Whether the pa

rent or g uardia n, or other pe rson re siding with the pare nt or g uardia n, has shown brutality , phy sical, sexual, emotional
or ps y c ho log ic a l a

bu se , o r n e g le c t to wa

rdthe c hil d, or

a no the r c hil d or adult in the fa milyor household; (7) Whether the phy sical environment of the pa rent’s or g uardia n’s home is healthy

and saf e, whe ther ther e is criminal ac tivityin the home, or whether there is such use of alcohol or controlled substances as may rende r the pa

rent or g uardian co n sistentlyunable to ca re f or the child in a saf

e and sta ble manner ; (8) Whether

the p ar en t’s or g uardia n’s mental and/or emotional status woul d b e d etrim ental to the child or pr event the pa rent or g uardia n from ef

fec tively providing safe an d stable ca re and supervision for the child; or (9) Whether

the parent or g uardia n has paid c hild support consistent with the ch i l d support g uidelines promulg ated by the depa rtment pursuant to § 36-5-101.

Whil e the r ecor d shows that visitation occ urre d betwee n Michelle Davidson and the childre n with some d e g r e e o f

r e g u la r it y , p r im ar il y

th r o u g h th e e f

f o r ts o f D CS , a n d th e r e c o r d f

u r ther
e sta bli sh e s th a t th e Mo the r l ov e s h e r c hil dre n a ndthe c hil dr e n lo ve he r, no ne of the oth e r c ri te ri a supports the position of t he parent. The recor d and findings of the court specific ally list every one of the statutorily

listed criteria

. The state a

rg ues cor rec tly , “The listed factor s are not exhausti ve. The statute does not require
every fac tor to appea

r before a court can find that termination is in a child’s best intere st.” Tennessee De p’ t of Chi ldre n’ s S e rv ic e s v . T. S. W ., e t al

. , 2002 WL

970434 *3 (Tenn.Ct.App.2002).-11-

The re cord f

ully supports the trial court determination by clea r and convincing evidenc e that te r mi n a ti o n of t he p ar e n ta l rig h ts o f M ic h e ll e D a v id s o n is in th e b e s t i n te r e s t o f th e c h il d r e n

. We find the following discussion in accor d:

I n ma kin g thi s b e st- int e re sts de te rm ination, the tr ia l c ou rt is r e qu ir e d to consider, int e r a lia , [t h e s tatu to r y f a c to r s ]:

. . . . Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(i)( Supp.1998). I n finding that terminati o n o f the Mother’ s pare ntal rig hts was in the children’ s best interests, the trial c ourt sp ec ifically considere d fac tors (1), ( 2), (5) , (7), a nd (9).

. . . . We c on c lud e that th e e vid e nc e su pp orts the tr ia l c ou rt s’ fi nd ing s.

I n R e C

. W. W. , 37 S.W .3d 467, 475-77 (Te nn.Ct.App.2000)(af firming trial court’s te rmination of pare ntal rig hts despite pare nt’s “sig nificant” prog ress).

As i n al l termination of par ental rig hts cases, c ourt inquiry must be sear ching and dilige nt befor e a c ourt is justified in te rminating the fundame ntal rig ht of natura l pa rents to the car e, custody and control of their children. In re Drinnon , 776 S.W .2d 96 (Tenn.Ct.App.1988). I n this case the addiction of the Mother

to methamphetamine r equire d DCS to act to remove he r c h i l dren f rom deplora ble conditions. She was af forde d every

opportunity

t o co n front her problems while he r children w ere being nurtured in f oster ca re. She declined he r opportunities and he r own c onduct returne d her to inca

rce ration. On e ach of

t h e t wo o cc asi ons when she w as re lease d from inc arc e ratio n s he re turne d to the c omp a ny of ot her pe rs on s in vo lve d indr ug s. I f h e r e sse nti a lly
un su pp orte d c la im i s a c tua lly true , th a t f

oll ow inghe r l a st i nc arc e ratio n s he ha s me nd e d h e r w a y s, it i s si mpl y

too lit tle a ndtoo la te

. Ev e ry te rm inatio n of pa re nta l ri g hts c a se is a

tig htr op e wa lk w ith the best intere st of children a nd the funda mental rig ht to c are and custody of those childre n serving
a s b a la nc ing fa c tor s. Whe n, a s h e re , th e pa re nt h a s d e mon str a te d s uc h a c omp le te la c k of

ho ne sty in h e r o wn dr

ug tr eat men t as we ll a s a c omp le te ina

bil ity to c omp ly

wi th p are nti ng plans wh os e primary purpose wa s to r eunite her with the children she would otherwise ha ve a right to raise, the tightrope walk come s to a ca lamitous end. The trial court’s dete rmination, when supporte d by such
c le ar andc on vin c ing e vid e nc e a s he re app e ars , that su c h r e un if ic a tio n w ou ld f

a il t o s e rv e the be st interest of the children should be, and is here by , aff irmed. The primary

conce rn of the Court is, af ter all, the best interest of the children, not the best interest of the natura l pa rent. Judgment of the trial
c ou rt is i n a ll r e sp e c ts a ff

ir me d a ndc os ts a

re a sse sse d a g a ins t A pp e lla nt.-12- ___________________________________ WI LL I AM B. CAIN, J UDGE