### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON A SS IG N E D O N BR IE FS A U G U ST 5, 200 8

IN RE: A.R. (D OB 8/13/05 ) A C hi ld U nd er Ei gh te en Y ea rs of A ge

Direc t Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Madison Cou nty No. 45-40, 255 Christy R . Little, Judge

No. W2008-00558-C OA-R3-P T - Filed October 13, 2008

Mother appe als the juvenile court’s decision to te rminate he r par ental rig hts. The minor child has been in the c ustody

of the De partment of Children’s Service s since he w as five months old, as the juvenile cour

t f ound that he was de pendent a nd neg lected. F ollowing a pproxi mately

six teen months of se rv ic e s and a fa ile d tri a l home vis it, DC S fi le d a p e tit ion to t e rm inate Mo the r’ s p are nta l r ig hts

. T h e tr ia l c o u rt t e r

mi n a te d M o th e r ’ s p ar e n ta l r ig h ts o nth e g r o u n d o f “ p e r s is te n c e o f

c o n d it io n s

. ” We aff irm.

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

A LA N E. H I G H ERS , P.J.,W.S., de livered the opinion of the court, in w hich D AVI D R. F ARMER , J., and H OL LY M. K I RBY , J., joined.

Jere my B. Epperson, Pinson, TN, for Appe llant

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney Gene ral and Reporter
, Michae l E . Moore, Solicitor Gene ral, Joshua Davis Baker , Assistant Attorney Gene ral, Na shville, TN, for Appe llee

Lanis L. Ka

rnes, Ja ckson, TN, f

or Gua rdian Ad Litem

OP IN ION-2- I. F A C TS & P R OC EDU R A L H I S T ORY

L .R. ( “Mother” ) g ave birth to a son (“A .R.”) on Aug ust 13, 2005, when Mother was fif teen y ear s old. A.R.’s fathe r was never involved in his life. Mother a nd A.R. lived with Mother’s mother and stepfather.

On J anuar

y 18, 2006, when A.R. was five months old and Mother was six teen y ear s old, the D e p art m e n to f

C h i l dr e n ’ s S e r

v i c e s ( “ D C S ” ) r e c e i v e d

a r e f e r r a l r e g ar d i n g p o s s i b l e h ar m t o A

. R

. It

was re ported that Mother had thrown or

dropped A .R. into a bean ba g chair and stated on va

rious

occa sions that she wanted to ha rm the child. Specifica lly , Mother re portedly stated that she wa

nted to throw the baby

out the window, leave him outside in the cold to free ze to death, throw the ba by in a trash c an, or put him in the oven.

On J anuar

y 25, 2006, DCS filed a petition to adjudicate A.R. de pendent a nd neg lected, all egi n g that A.R. was at r isk of suffe ring injury , abuse or neg lect pursua

nt to Tennessee Code A n n o t a t e d s e c t i o n 3 7

- 1

- 1 0 2 ( b ) ( 1 2 ) ( F ) , ( G )

. T h e p e t i t i o n r e c o u n t e d t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e DC S ref err al and the r esults of its investig ation to date. Acc ording to the petition, Mother would g et ang ry when the ba

by crie d at nig ht, and Mother’ s family members state d Mother wa s “ver y roug h with the ba by and ha s th ro wn

him on the be d. ” DC S a lso a lle g e d th a t Mo the r “ is s a id t o le a ve the ba by wi th people she hardly

knows” a

n d t hat Mother wa s dating a thirty -six y ear old man. Mother had repor tedly been obse rved try

ing to c are for the ba

by while intox icated. A ccor ding to the pet i t ion, Mo the r s ta te d th a t sh e ha d b e e n “d ia g no se d as b i- po lar, ” a nd sh e a dmi tte d s he so me tim e s h a d tr ou ble controlling her ang er. Mother st ated she had re cently started takingmedication to help contr ol her condition. Accor ding to the pe tition, M other a dmitted to a D C S i n vestig ator that she ha d made statements about wa

nting to “g et rid of the baby or throw him awa

y or put him up for adoption,” but she said she w o u l d n ot rea lly harm A.R. and just say s those things whe n she g ets frustrated. Mother’s mother

also told the investigator that she had hear d Mother’s comments but did not take the m se ri ou sly . M oth e r d e nie d e ve r t hr ow ingA. R.
DCS sought an or der f

inding A.R. to be dependent and neg lected but maintained that ther e
was a less drastic alternative to r emoving A.R. from Mother’s home. DCS took the pos i t i o n t hat A.R. should be permitted to rema in in the home of Mother a nd her mother , but subject to conditions

an d l i m i t a t i o n s o u t l i n e d

i na s a f e t y p l and i r e c t e d b y t h e c o u rt f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f

A

. R

. S p e c i f

i c a l l y, DCS contended that Mother should not be left unsupervise d with A.R., and it proposed that Mother be re qu ir e d to pa

rt ic ipate in in- ho me c ouns e lin g

. DC S a lso su g g e ste d that “ a He a lth y Start Nurs e
and Wet Nurs e ” be in t

he ho me we e kly . A lte rn a tiv e ly , D CS so ug ht t e mpo ra ry c us tod y of A. R.

On Janu ary 28 , 2 00 6, be fo re a

he ari ngc ou ld b e he ld o n D CS’ s p e tit ion , A .R. wa s ta ke n to the emerg ency room with a head i njury

. Acc ording to Mother, A.R. had a CT scan a nd MRI , and he wa s kept in the hospital for two to thre e day s “for observation.” The trial c ourt held a pr eliminary hear ing on January

31. Mother wa s prese nt, along with her a ppointed counsel, the guardia n ad litem for A.R., a

nd various per sonnel from DCS and C hild Protective S ervic es (“CPS ”). The trial cour t fo un d pro ba

ble c a us e to be lie ve that A.R. sh ou ld be re mov e d f ro m Mo the r’ s h ome , a

nd tha t de sp iteT en n esse e C o d e A n n o t ated sec t i o n 3 7 -1 -1 2 8 (e)(1 ) p ro v i d es: 1

( e) ( 1) I f
, dur i ng t he pende ncy of a ny pr oce edi ng unde r t hi s c hapt er , t her e i s re as on t o bel i eve t hat t he chi l d m ay be s uff er i ng f r om m ent al i l l nes s , t he court m ay order t he ch i l d t o be eval uat ed on an

o u tp a tien t b a sis b y a c o m m u n ity m e n ta l h e a lth c e n te r, m e n ta l h e a lth in s titu te o r lice n se d p riv a te pr ac t i t i oner

. I f
, dur i ng t he pe ndenc y of any pr oce edi ng unde r t hi s c hapt er , t her e i s r ea s on t o be l i eve t hat t he chi l d m ay be s uf f er i ng f r om de vel opm ent al di s abi l i t y, t he cour t m ay or der t he chi l d t o be

eva l uat ed on a n out pat i ent ba s i s by t he com m uni t y m ent al he al t h c ent er , de v el opm ent al c ent er or l i cens ed pri vat e prac t i t i on er des i gn at ed by t he com m i s s i on er of m ent al hea l t h an d d evel op m ent al di s ab i l i t i es t o s er ve t he court

. I f t he prof es s i on al at t em pt i ng t o perf orm t he eval uat i on f or m ent al i l l nes s or de vel opm ent al di s abi l i t i es de t er m i nes t hat t he e val uat i on ca nnot be pe r f or m ed pr oper l y on

an ou t pat i ent bas i s , t he court m ay order t he chi l d pl ace d i n a hospi t al or t r eat m ent r es ou r ce, as def i ned i n § 33- 1- 101, f or t he pur pos es of e val uat i on a nd f or t r ea t m ent ne ce s s ar y t o t he eva l uat i on, f or not

m or e t han t hi r t y ( 30) da ys

. I f t he cour t de t er m i nes t hat t her e i s r ea s on t o be l i eve t hat t he chi l d: ( A ) I s m ent al l y i l l ; a nd (B ) Po ses an i m m ed i at e sub st an t i al l i k el i h o o d of ser i o u s h arm , as d efi n ed i n T i t l e 3 3
, C h ap t er 6, Pa rt 5
, b ec au se o f t h e m en t al i l l n ess; t he cour t m ay or der t he chi l d pl ac ed i n a hos pi t al or t r ea t m ent r es our ce , as def i ned i n § 33- 1- 101, f or t he pur pos es of

e val uat i on a nd f or t r ea t m ent nec es s ar y t o t he eva l uat i on, f or not m or e t han t hi r t y ( 30) days

. I f a chi l d i s pl ac ed i n a s t at e- s uppor t ed f ac i l i t y, t he chi l d s hal l be i n t he cus t o d y of t he

co m m i ss i o n er.

A “ per m ane ncy pl an” i s a w r i t t en pl an f or a c hi l d pl ac ed i n f os t er ca r e w i t h D CS or i n t he ca r e of a n a genc y. 2

Tenn. Code Ann. § 37- 2- 402( 8)

. Requi r em ent s for per m ane ncy pl ans ar e l i s t ed i n Tenne s s ee Code Annot at ed s ec t i on 3 7 -2 -4 0 3

.
-3- the re asonable eff

orts of DCS, ther e was no less drastic alternative to removal. The court a lso found that th e e me rg e nc y natur e of the c hil d’ s con dit ion jus tif ie d the la c k of furt

he r p re ve nti ve me a sure s. T h e c o u rt fo u n d

i twa s co n t ra ry

t o A. R

. ’s b es t

i n t er es tt o re m ai ni nM o t h er ’s cu s t o dy , ex p l ai n i n g,
[Mot her] has re portedly dropped the child and thrown him into a beanba g . She has further made state ments indicating a desire to ha rm the child

. . . . A safe ty plan was attempted to avoid re moval but over the wee kend of J anuar y 28, 2006, the baby

was injured while in [ill eg ible] and medical attention had to be soug ht f or the infa nt. The ba by ’s he a d w a s e ith e r b ang e d a g a ins t the wa ll by [Mot he r] o r s he wa s c arr

y inghim

and hi s head hit

a do or wa y wh e n s he wa lke d thro ug h it . Sh e a dmi tte d th a t th is

occur red w hile she wa s having an ar g ument with her mother . . . .

The c ourt g rante d custody of A.R. to DCS pending an adjudicatory hear ing. Mothe r wa s adjudicate d delinquent as a

result of the a ltercation with her mother, and Mothe r ente red D CS’s J uvenile Just ice prog ram. O n Fe b ruar

y 1, 2006, Mother wa s admitted to Timber Springs A dolesce nt Center at Western Mental He alth I nstitut e (“ Timber Springs” ) for a juvenile cour t ordere d evaluation pursuant to Tennesse e Code Annotated sec tion 37-1-128(e )(1)

. 1

On F e br ua ry 16 , 2 00 6, a

pe rm ane nc y

pla n sta ff ingwa s h e ld, wh ic h invo lve d M s. Ta nzania 2 Reid, DCS C ase Ma

nag er f or A.R.’s ca se, alongwith various other DCS personnel. The pe rmane ncy pla n li ste d a s th e “ re a so ns fo r c us tod y ” tha t “th e re we re a lle g a tio ns tha t [A. R.]’ s mo the r b ang e d h imT h e p e rm a n e n c y p la n is a c tu a lly d a te d F e b ru a ry 1 6
, 2005 , a n d lists a ta rg e t d a te o f F e b ru a ry 1 6
, 2006

. T h ese 3
dat es a r e cl ea r l y e r r oneous , a s not ed i n t he br i ef s , a s A

. R. w as not e ven bor n unt i l A ugus t of 2005.

-4- a g a ins t a wal l.” Th e pe rm ane nc y pla n liste d as its pe rm ane nc y g oa l: “r e un if y wi th pare nt” or

“ e xit custody to live with relative.” I t established a g oal targ et date of one y ear later, F ebrua

ry 16, 2007. 3 Re g ard ingMo the r, the “ de sir e d o utc ome ” of the pla n w a s th a t Mo the r wo uld

“ be a ble to c op e wi th

ever y day stressors as a

teena g e pare nt” and “be a ble to demonstrate a

ppropriate /positi ve par enting skills and have a positive re lationship with [A.R.] .” I n order to a chieve that outcome, Mother w as require d to (1) have a mental he alth assessment duringher sta y at Timber Spring s and follow the

rec ommendations of the a ssessment; (2) attend pa renting classes throug h a contr act a g ency ; and (3)

a t t e n d s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t s w i t h A

. R

. , w h i c h w o u l d b e ar r an g e d b y D C S t h r o u g h a p r o v i d e ra g e n c y. Reg ardingthe alter

native outcome for A.R. – “exit custody to live with relative” – the plan re quired DCS to p er fo rm a dil ige nt searc h to locate a relative, and conduc t home studies and bac kg round

c he c ks of any re la tiv e s w ill ingto t a ke A. R.

On Fe bruar

y 22, 2006, a psy cholog ical re port was issued by Rebec ca Stanf

ield, a L icense d Senior Psy cholog ical Examiner at Timber S pring s, and the repor t was also sig ned by

a socia l worker

and a c hil d a nd a do le sc e nt p sy c hiatr ist . T he re po rt de ta ile d M oth e r’ s tr ou

ble d h ist or

y and pa st criminal cha

rg es. In the summer of 2003, she ra n awa y from home. In October

of 2003, Mother w as char g ed with ag g ravated assault for pushing her mother. She was admitt ed to Timber Spring s for

an eva luation, then place d on “intensi v e p robation” after returninghome. At some point, Mother

mov e d in wi th h e r b oy fr ie nd

and be c a me pr e g na

nt. I n Jan ua ry of 20 05 , M oth e r w a s c ha

rg e d w ith theft af ter stea ling jew elry . She was plac ed into DCS c ustody and a foster home. Mother ha d been

remove d from her

mother’s home on f

our occasions. Ba sed on the most rec ent alter cation betwe en M o t h e r an d h e r m o t h e r , w h i c h l e d t o A

. R

. ’ s h e a d i n j u r y , M o t h e r w a s r e p o rt e d l y c h ar g e d w ith domestic vanda lism and ag g ravated domestic assa ult. At Timber Springs, Mother told a nurse that she and her m o t h er were “ve rbally fig hting,” and she de nied hitting her mother. Howe ver, she admitted throwing a piece of g lass and brea king a mirror. Reg arding A.R.’s injury , Mother insisted that A .R. bumpe d h is h e a d e arl ie r i n th e da y , a nd wh e n th e po lic e sa

w his br uis e , th e y re po rt e d it

.
The Timber

Springs r eport indica

ted that Mother’ s family history was “ positive for dy sfunction,” a

nd that Mother said she w as m o l es t ed b y her f ather when she was six y ear s old. Mother stated that her father wa s incarc erated base d on molestation charg es, but he c urre ntly lived in Ja c ks on

and wa s “ su pp or tiv e ” of he r. Mo the r w a s c ur

re ntl y in t he te nth g ra de and

do ingwe ll i n school. She admitted past use of ma rijuana a nd alcohol but denied using them in the past y ear . At Ti mbe r S pr ing s, Mo the r d e sc ri be d a pr e vio us inc ide nt, tw o y e ars be fo re , in whic h she pu t a g un to he r h e a d a

nd thr e a te ne d to kil l he rs e lf

. She sa id sh e ha d b e e n d e pr e sse d b e c a us e of pr ob le ms w ith a boy friend. A fter that incident, Mother wa s taken to a hospital for evaluation, and she re ceive d

ou tpatie nt c ouns e lin g . M oth e r d e sc ri be d h a vin g ang e r c on tr ol p ro blem s. Mo the r h a d p re vio us ly been dia g nosed with bi-polar disorde r, and she had rece ived out patient s ervic es at Pathway s and at the Professional He alth Service s in J ackson, a long w ith school c ounseling . Mother’s mother visited her at Timber Spring s and said that Mother’ s family was a lso participating in counseling

.-5-

The Ti m b er S p ring s repor t stated that Mother ha d display ed g ood behavior “[w]i thin the structure d and super

vised setting of

the psy chiatric hospital[ .]” Mother’s e v a luation results indicated “ave rag e intellectua l abilities” and “a vera g e to a

bove aver ag e” aca demic skills. Ba sed on her te sting and obser vations, howeve r, the e x aminer c oncluded that Mother ’s “be h av i o r wil l be ty pified by social undepe ndability

and a tendenc y

toward e x ploitation of others.” She noted that Mother “of ten acts as i f s h e wer e indiffe rent to the we lfare of others,” and “[a]lthough she is willing to e x pend eff ort to achie ve something for he rself, she is diff icult a nd resistant about car

rying out what others ask of he r.” The examiner also noted Mother’ s “impulsiveness, short-sig hted h edonis m and her min ima l r egard fo r t

he c on se qu e nc e s o f h e r b e havio r” and pr e dic te d th a t “ [d]if

fi c ult ie s w ithbo th fa mil y and le g a l a uth or iti e s ma

y e ns ue .” She de sc ri be d M oth e r’ s ju dg me nt a s “ ty pic a lly

un de pe nd a

ble and hig hly e rr a tic ,” and state d that “ [h]e r s ur fa c e a ff a bil ity is o ft e n p un c tuate d w ith abrupt a nd ang ry outbursts.”

Be neath t h e heading“Diag nostic I mpression,” the e x aminer listed: Conduct disorder, ado l escent onset ty

pe; Pare nt-child relational problem; and Posttraumatic stress disorde r. The

e xami ne r t

he n li ste d th e “ Tr e atme nt T e a m Re c omm e nd a tio ns ” a s f oll ow s:

The re sults of the evaluat i o n indicate that [Mother] should be returne d to court for adjudic a ti o no f

h e r c h ar g e s

. . . . [M o th e r ] h a s h a d a w id e r an g e o f

p r evious int e rv e nti on s in c lud ingjuv e nil e c ourt -o rd e re d e va luatio n, pla c e me nt a t Ma rt in P TC, foster c are , outpatient counseling and medication mana g ement. The se interve ntions have no t be e n s uc c e ssf

ul i n c ha ng ing he r be havio r. Ho we ve r, sh e ha s don e we ll i n a structur ed and supe rvised setting , indicating that she is able to control her behavior

an d b e n e f it f r o m c h an g e s in h e r e n v ir o n me n t. H e r mo th e r h a s r e p e a te dly told the treatment team that the entire family is in counseling a

nd t h at she is willing to do whateve r is nece ssary

for [Mother] and her ba

by to be bac k at hom e. The tre atment team has r ecommende d that the court consider a continuation of community -base d service s to include a strict monitoring of [Mother]’s behavior in the community

and

a t ho me . B oth

[Mothe r] an d her mot

he r c ou ld b e ne fi t f

ro m be inginv olv e d in pare nting c lasses. To improve the communication betwe en [Mother] and her mo th e r, in-home family counseling is rec ommended. [Mother] could also benefit fr om ang er manag ement counse ling a nd she will ne ed to continue her medication mana g ement

a pp oin tme nts

. Althou gh [Mot her] has an A x is Idiag nosis, she is not commit table under Title 33, Chapter 6, Part 5 Te nnessee Code Annotated.

Mo the r’ s “ dis c ha

rg e plan” st ate d tha t sh e wo uld be dis c ha

rg e d to the Ma dis on

County Juve nil e Court

.
On Marc h 7, 2006, the juvenile cour t held an adjud i ca t o ry and dis positional hearingon DCS’s peti ti o nto a d

ju d ic a te A

. R. d e p e n d e n t a n d n e g le c te d

. M o th e r

w a s p r e s e n t, a lo n g w it

h h er attorney , the g uardia

n ad litem, and var ious DCS and CP S personne l. We do not have a tr anscr ipt of the he aring , but the juvenile cour t’s order states t hat t he par ties stipulated that A.R. was depe ndentD es pi t e t he s t i pul at i on at t hi s hea r i ng, M ot her l at er t es t i f i ed at t he t er m i nat i on he ar i ng t hat s he di d not m ake 4

a n y o f th e se sta te m e n ts.

-6- and neg lected, and t hey further stipulated that the court could adopt the facts in DCS’s petition from Janu ary 25 a s it s f

ind ing s o f fact

. Th e c ourt the n li ste d th e fo llo wi ngsp e c if ic fi nd ing s o f f

a c t: Mother had ma de stateme nts indicating a desire to ha

rm the child by

throwing him out the window or in a tra sh can, le aving hi m o u t s i d e to freeze, or putting him in an oven; and A.R. wa s 4 subsequently

taken to the e merg ency

room with a head injury

that occur

red w hile Mother wa s in an argument. The c ourt found cle ar a nd convincing evidenc e that A.R. was depende nt and neg lected, and that there w as no less dra stic alternative to removing A.R. from Mother’ s custody , despite DCS’s

rea sonable e ffor

ts to prevent re moval by attempting a

safe ty plan that would al low supervised visitati on in Mother’s mother’ s home. Ag ain, the cour t noted that the lack of

further preve ntive

me a sure s w a s re a so na

ble , co ns ide ri ng the e me rg e nc y natur e of A. R.’ s c ir c ums tanc e s. Th e juv e nil e court a pproved the perma

nency plan pre pare d b y DC S and made it an order of the c ourt, upon fi nd ing that the pla

n wa s re a so na

ble , with a

pp ro pr ia te g oa ls an d re sp on sib ili tie s for the pa rt ie s. A. R. was to re main in the custody of DCS , and supervised visitation would take plac e throug h the Carl Perkins Center f

or the Preve ntion of Child Abuse.

On Ap ri l 5, 20 06 , a

re vis e d p e rm ane nc y

pla n w a s c re a te d by th e fo llo wi ngpa rt ic ipa nts : Mo the r; Mo the r’ s atto rn e y ; A .R. ’s ca se mana g e r, Ms. Re id; Court Ap po int e d Sp e c ia l A dv oc a te (“CASA”) , Shannon Stewart; g uardia n ad litem, L an i s Kar

nes; A.R.’s foster

mother; and va

rious oth e r D CS pe rs on ne l. Th is pla n did no t c ha

ng e the pe rm ane nc y

g oa l of “ re un if y wi th p are nt o r e xit

c us tod y to liv e wi th re la tiv e ,” bu t it e xten de d the g oa l ta rg e t da te fr om F e br

ua ry 16 , 2 00 7, to A

pr il 5, 2007. The desired out come remained that Mother would be a ble to cope w ith everyday stressors

and be a ble to d e mon str a te a

pp ro pr ia te and

po sit ive pa

re nti ngsk ill s in

a po sit ive re la tio ns hip wi th A. R., and th e pl an a lso lis te d a

de sir e d o utc ome that Mo the r w ou ld b e a ble to d isp lay

a pp ro pr ia te independe nt living skills. I n o rd er t o acc omplish t his, Mother was r equire d to follow the Timber Springs e x aminer’ s rec ommendations t h at she c ontinue her pa renting classes, attend counseling sessions through Professional He alth Service s, and continue me dication manag ement with her mental health provider. Mother was also require d to complete an inde pendent living assessment and continue super

vised visitation with A.R

.
The re vised perma

nency plan was a

pproved by t h e j u venile cour t following a

hear ing on April 25, 2006. The c ourt ag ain found that DCS was makingrea sonable e ffor ts toward re unification by providing counseling , pare nting c lasses, medication manag ement, an inde pendent living assessment, and me dical and de ntal car e, as w ell as dilige ntly sear ching fo r a re l ative and A .R.’s fathe r. The c ourt also noted in its order that Mother was doing well in school and on honor r oll, and the orde r stated that “ once the plan is complete, there should be no barr iers for [A.R.] ’s re turn to her

c are .” The or de r p ro vid e d th at A .R. sh ou ld b e a llo we d to have un su pe rv ise d w e e ke nd

vis its wi th Mo the r u nti l he r s umm e r v a c a tio n f ro m sc ho ol, a t w hic h ti me , if the we e ke nd

vis its we re g oin g we ll, Mother would be a llowed additional unsupervise d visitation.M ot her had com pl et ed t he program requi r ed by Juveni l e Jus t i ce, an d t hat progra m r ecom m ended t hat M ot her 5

r et urn f or a 3 0-day t r i al h om e v i s i t w i t h her m ot her. M ot her w as t hen rem ov ed f r om D C S cus t od y, but s he r em ai ned on pr obat i on.

-7- Af te r t his or de r w a s ent ered , a

Chi ld A bu se Re vie w T e a m th a t ha d r e vie we d A .R. ’s c a se
re com mende d th a t Mo the r n ot b e a llo we d in c re a se d v isi ta tio n w ithA. R. T he juv e nil e c ourt he ld another hear ing on Ma

y 30, 2006. The court’s order not es the Child Abuse Review T eam’ s conce rns and also states that Mother’s foster home had ex presse d conce rns about Mother’ s behavior. Acc ording to the foster mother , during a v i s i t with A.R. at the foster home , Mother wa s observe d holding the ba

by in the swimming pool with one hand a nd holding a

cig are tte in her other

hand. On another occa sion, Mother left A.R. and the fo s t er m o t her’ s four y ear old child in the house alone. The foste r mother a lso reporte d that Mother ref used to follow the sche dule she ha d established for A. R. T he c ourt ’s or de r s ta te s th a t A .R. ’s fo ste r m oth e r w a s w ill ingto t a ke Mo the r i nto he r h ome and to supervise Mother with A.R ., and the c ourt approve d that arr ang ement. Ag ain, the cour t found

no le ss d ra sti c a lte rn a tiv e to re mov ing A. R. fr om Mot he r’ s cus tod

y , d e sp ite the re a so na

ble e ff or ts of DCS as set out in the perma nency plan.
A.R. turned one y ear

old on Aug ust 13, 2006. On October 26, 2006, a third perma nency plan was dra fted, whic h provided for co n t inued supervise d visitation, parenting classes, c ounseling sessions, and medication manag ement. This third plan did not alter the g oal targ et date of April 5, 2007. Mother signe d the perma nency plan, and she also signe d a docume nt acknowle dg ing that she ha d r e c e ive d a

n e xplanatio n a

nd c op y of the c ri te ri a

and pr oc e dure s fo r te rm inatin g pa re nta l r ig hts

. The pe rmane ncy

plan was a

pproved by the j uvenile court following a hearing on Dec ember 5, 2006. The court found that DCS wa s making rea sonable eff orts at reunific ation, y et the nee d for f oster ca re sti ll e xiste d. Th e c ourt

or de re d th a t Mo the r be a llo we d tw o we e ks vis itatio n wi th A. R. at Ch ri stm a s, and “if the hom e check[ed] out,” A.R

. would beg in a 90-day “trial home visit” with Mother at he r mother’s home. The orde r states, “ On ce [ M o ther] completes her plan as a delinquent child and 5 completes the pla

n for [A.R.] , there should be no barr iers to the stated g oals.”

On Fe bruar

y 20, 2007, Ms. Re id, D CS Case Ma nag er, f iled a motion for re view in which she stated that A.R. was “ doing w ell” in the home of Mother and her mother. She stated, “I f there are
no pr ob le ms d

ur ingthe tr ia l ho me vis it, [A. R.] w ill le a ve c us tod y and cus to dy

wi ll b e re tur

ne d to h is mo th e r [. ]” O nF e b r

u ar y 2 4 , 2 0 0 7 , D CS r e c e iv e d a r e p o rt o f p o s s ib le h ar

m c o n c e r n in g A

. R.,

c on c e rn inga

ba nk e mpl oye e wh o r e po rt e d to po lic e that sh e wi tne sse d M oth e r h itt ingA. R.

re pe a te dly

a t the ba nk

. Th e juv e nil e c ourt he ld a he a ri ngon F e br ua ry 27 , a nd its or de r n ote s th a t a CPS in ve sti g a tio n w a s p e nd ingin G ibs on County ba se d o n t he ban k empl oy e e ’s re po rt

. Neve rtheless, the c ourt all o we d A.R.’s trial home visit with Mother to continue pending a fur ther hear ing sc heduled f

or April 3, althoug h A.R. would leg ally rema in in DCS custody . Ag ain, the cour t found that DCS was making rea sonable e ffor ts to reunify

A.R. and Mother.

Around Mar ch of 2007, the g uardia n ad litem filed a motion seekinga re straining order ag ainst Mother’s fia

ncé, pr ohibiting him from assaulting , molesting, c allin g, o r hara ssing A.R. at day car e or at home

. The g uardia n ad litem a lleg ed that Mother’s fianc é had pr eviously been c harg ed-8-

with contributing to the de linqency of a minor, he had seve ral a ssault char g es, and he had violated his pr obation. I t a

ppear s that the trial court did e nter a restra ining order prohibiti n g u n supervised contac t betwee n the fianc é and A .R., though the or der is not in the re cord.
On the morning of April 3, 2007, prior to the sc h ed u l ed h ear ing that after noon, A.R.’s day car e contacted DCS and re ported that A.R. had se vere bruises on his leg s. At the afte rnoon he ari ng , the juv e nil e c ou

rt jud g e saw the br

uis e s a nd imm e diate ly

te rm inate d A .R. ’s tr ia l ho me vis it wi th M other, st atin g , “ the re ha s b e e n a ne w r e fe rr a l r e c e ive d r e g ard ingthe min or c hil d a nd so me unexplained bruises on the child’s leg s and bac k of var ious ag es and colors.” The court order ed that Mother would ag ain be limited to supe rvised visitation, and A.R. was plac ed in a ne w foster home. Ag ain, the cour

t found DCS had made rea sonable efforts to preve nt remova l of A.R. by providing the servic es listed in the pare nting plan a nd proposing the trial home visit.

On J une 5, 2007, DCS filed a petition to terminate the pare ntal rig hts of Mother base d on the g round of persistent conditions, Tennessee Code Annotated se ction 36-1-113( g )(3) , and on the g round of substantial noncompliance with the permanenc y plan, Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 36-1-113( g )(2) . The pe tition also soug ht to terminate A.R.’s fathe r’s pa renta l rig hts on the g round of aba ndonment. Mother filed a mot ion seeking another 90-day trial home visit with A.R. Mot her also moved for

an eva luation of her pa

renting skills, t o be funde d by the Administrative Dire ctor of the Supreme Court, be cause Mother claimed she was indige nt. Following a hearing on Aug ust 14, 2007, the cour

t entere d an orde r deny

ing Mothe r’s re quest for a dditional visi tation. The c ourt noted its concer ns about Mother’s f

iancé and the f

act that Mother

had quit high sc hool, concluding that Mother’s “ability to sta

biliz e rema ins an issue without improvement and unre solved as of this date.” The c ourt g rante d Mother’s motion for a n evaluation of her pare nting skills, with the stated g oal of d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r

A

. R

. c o u l d

b e s a f e i nM o t h e r ’ s c ar e i n t h e f o r e s e e a b l e f u tu r e , o r c o n v e r s e l y, wh e the r M oth e r h a d s uc h d e fi c ie nc ie s in he r s kil ls a s to make it unli ke ly that A .R. c ou ld b e sa fe in her c are

.
Mother subse q u en t l y t u rned eig hteen y ear s old. On Dec ember 4, 2007, the cour

t held a hear ing to r eview A .R.’s case and a revised permane ncy plan dra fted Nove mber 5. That permane ncy plan is not in the recor d. The c ourt approve d the plan’s modified pe rmane ncy g oal of “ exit custody to live with relatives/adoption,” ove r Mother’ s objection. The c ou rt fo u n d that this goa l was appropr iate and in A.R.’s be st interest bec ause A .R

. h ad b ee n i n DCS custody for ove r fifte en months, and “imminent return to Mother [was] not forese sable.”

The fina l hear ing on D CS’s petiti on to terminate pa renta l r i gh t s was held on J anuar y 22, 20 08

. A. R.’ s fa the r did no t app e ar at the he ari ng

. Hi s att or ne y wa s pre se nt, bu t A .R. ’s fa the r d id not contest the termination of his par ental rights. A.R.’s father ha d previously informed the guardia

n
a d li te m th a t he kn e w Mo the r we ll, and he tho ug ht i t w a s in A. R.’ s b e st i nte re st t o r e ma in w ithhis

curr ent foster

pare nts. The cour

t orders a nd filings that pr ece ded the ter mina t i on petition were int ro du c e d in to e vid e nc e a s e xhibi ts.-9-

Ms. Re id, A. R.’ s D CS Ca se Mana g e r, te sti fi e d th a t sh e ha d b e e n invo lve d in his ca se a s Ca se Mana g e r s inc e he fi rs t c a me int o D CS c us tod y in Janu ary

of 20 06 . M s. Ste wa

rt te sti fi e d s he ha d a lso been w orking with A.R., thr o u gh CASA, since J anuar y of 2006. B oth testified about the var ious pe rm ane nc y

pla ns fo r A .R. and

ho w D CS a tte mpt e d to he lp M oth e r c omp ly wi th the pla

ns

. Ms. Re id testified that she e x plained to Mother the conseque nces of failing to comply

with the plans and the po ssi bil ity

tha t he r p are nta l r ig hts wo uld be te rm inate d if

sh e fai le d to c omp ly . M s. Re id a lso testified that DCS pa id f

or Mother’s supervised visitation with A.R. throug h the Carl Perkins Center for th e P re v ention of Child Abuse. Mother wa s curr ently having one to two hours per wee k of supervised visitation, and the r eports fr om her visitation were g ood. An empl o y ee o f t h e Carl Perkins Center testified that ba sed on her obse rvations during the supervise d visitation, she thought Mother wa s rea dy

for some unsupe rvised visits with A.R Howe ver, she acknow ledg ed that she had not obse rved Mother with A .R. outside of the super vised setting at the Carl Perkins Center, a nd she had not witness ed any

instances in which A .R. neede d discipline, in order to obser ve Mother’ s
rea ction. When shown pictures of the bruises on A.R.’s leg s, which were r eporte d by his day car e, the visitation supervisor stated she “ wo u l d ce rt ainly not be comfor

table about those br

uises” and would repor

t them to DCS beca

use they did not appear

to be normal bruise s.
DCS also paid for Mother’ s pare nt i n g classes pr ovided throug h the Carl Perkins Center

. Reg ardingthe par enting classes, Mother testified, “they came to the house sometimes, and then other tim e s th e y tr ans po rt [ed ] me the re .” Mo the r co mpl e te d the pa re nti ng c la sse s pri or

to h e r t ri a l ho me visit wit h A.R. Ms. Reid testified she did not think Mother sufficie ntly prog resse d in the pare nting classes be cause of the “ repe tition of bruises” th at A. R

. s u s tained duringMother’s pa renting time,

even a fter she completed the c lasses.

Ms. Reid testified about Mother’s c ounseling , funded by TennCar e, which she desc ribed a s “ver y critica l” to Mother’s suc cess. Ms. Re id te stified that Mother’s mother and a DCS case wor ker

wer e responsible for providing Mother’s transportation, but Mother usually rode with he r m o t her b ec au s e s h e w as al s o i nco u n s el i n g. I n ac co rd an ce wi t h t h e r ec o m m en d at i o n s o f t h e T i mb er S p ri n gs examiner, the sec ond perma nency plan, dated April 5, 2006, require d Mother to attend c ounseling

a t Prof e ssi on a l He a lth Se rv ic e s. Ms. Re id te sti fi e d tha t DCS re fe rr e d Moth e r to Pr of e ssi on a l H e a lth Service s for individual a

nd family counseling to a ddress the issues involving A.R. and M o t h er ’s ang er iss u es i n v o l ving he r mother. Mother testified that she was sche duled to attend counse ling

ever y two wee ks. Howeve r, Profe ssional Health Servic es dischar g ed Mother bec ause she continued to miss her appointments. Ms. Reid was informed by Professional He alth Service s that clients are

us ua lly dis c ha rg e d a ft e r m iss ingthr e e sc he du le d ap po intme nts , b ut M oth e r m iss e d te n a pp oin tme nts befor e they

finally discharg ed her. Ms. Reid testified t hat t he st aff at Professional He alth Service s “we nt a bove and bey ond what they usually do” to a ssist Mot her. Ms. Reid then rec ommended that Mother re ceive counselin g at Quinco Mental Hea lth Center, and she beg an ca se mana g ement and

c ou ns e lin g s e s s i o n s , w h i c h w e r e s c h e d u l e d e v e r y t w o w e e k s

. H o w e v e r , M o t h e r qu i t g o i n g to counseling at Qu i n co af

ter she a nd her mother

moved to Milan, Tennesse e. Mother te stified that they moved to Milan in May

of 2007, and she quit he r counseling at Quinco in July of 2007. The petition to terminate Mother’s pa renta l rig hts was filed on J une 5, 2007. DCS learne d that Mother-10-

quit her counse ling in Oc tober of 2007. Ms. Reid then r ecommende d two counselors in Milan, and Mother beg an counse ling at Pathway s in November of 2007.

Mother testified that he r re asons for movingto Milan were , “50/50,” to be closer to her fianc é, who lived in Milan, and be cause Mother’s mother wanted to g et awa

y from Mother’ s stepfathe r’ s f a mil y wh e n th e y

div or c e d. Mo ther

te sti fi e d th a t sh e kn e w h e r c ouns e lin g wa s “ vit a l” to chang ing he r beha

vior, but she ac knowledg ed that she did not tell her case manag er that she was not g oing to he r counse ling a

ppointments. Mother testified that she quit her c ounseling at Quinco a fter she moved to Milan bec ause it wa s “a ha ssle” g oing f rom Milan to Jackson with her work sche dule. Whe n a sk e d w hy

sh e did no t te ll a ny on e a t D CS th a t sh e ne e de d tr ans po rt a tio n, sh e re pli e d, “ Wel l, Iwa s w or kin g a ll the tim e .” Mo the r t e sti fi e d s he wa s w or kin g fu ll- tim e a t a

Ta c o B e ll, bu t on ly

six hours per day . Mother explained that she ha d “ca rpel tunnel sy

ndrome in [her] fee t and hee l spurs,” which limited her a

bility to work, so she wa s hoping to qua lify fo r d i s ability

benef its. However , Mother later

testified she intende d to enroll in a nursing progr am i n J ackson a fter she completed he r GED c lasses. When a sked how she could financ ially provide for

A.R., Mother told Ms. St ewa rt that “if she r eg ained custody of [ A.R.], she would be able to g et on food st amps

. . . [and] help like that.”

Ms. Reid testified about the re port of abuse from the bank employ ee in F ebrua ry of 2007, during the trial h ome visit. Accordingto Ms. Reid, the bank employ ee r eporte d that she had ob se rv e d Mo the r hittin g A. R. “ so ba d” that th e e mpl oy e e fo llo we d M oth e r o ut t o th e c ar a nd wr ote do wn the lic e ns e plate numbe r. Th e ba nk e mpl oy e e re po rt e d th e inc ide nt t o p oli c e , a nd a pp a re ntl y the police d e partment re lay ed the infor mation to DCS . Acc ording to Ms. Reid, the police depa rtment conclude d that it could not press cha rg es ag ainst M o t h er b eca use there wer e no bruises f ollowing the inciden t

. T he CPS i nvestig ation was a lso classified as “ unfounded” beca use there wer e no bruises. Mot her testified about t he incident, explaining t hat s he was in the bank spe aking with a loan office r, and

[A.R.] was be ing a t y

pical one-y ear -old and running around. He ha d alre ady g ashed his head up with one inc ident when I had had him at the house and he stood up in the bathtub and he c ouldn’t – Icouldn’t g et a g rip of him and he f ell and sliced his hea d

o p en o nt h e l i t t l e b at h tu

b t h i n g. And I was ve ry , very

cautious of him then. And Idid not want him running

aro un d a nd fa lli ng . A nd

my c hil d tr ia l ho me vis its g e ts dis ru pte d. So I sma c ke d h im on his leg and I

told him no. And I took him out t o the ca r . . . . . . . I s a id , w e h a v e to le a v e b e c a u s e h e w a s s c r e a mi n g

. I d id n ’ t w an t to be embar rasse d so Ijust decided to take him home.

. . . But I wasn’t hitting him. I

was pa ssing a bottle to him to make him, y ou know, try t o s t o p s cr ea m i n g. Mother sai d t he bank e mploy ee must have been mistake n about her hitting A.R. bec ause she was simply g iving him a bottle.-11-

Ms. Reid also testified about the bruises repor ted by the day car e in April of 2007, which she de sc ri be d a s “ ve ry

se ve re .” Whe n th e da

y c are c a lle d a

bo ut t he br uis e s, Ms. Re id s e nt M s. Ste wa rt , fr om C ASA , o ut t o th e da y c are to i nv e sti g a te the sit uatio n a nd take pic tur e s of the br

uis e s. Ms. Stewart e x plained that the br uises “looked like someone had take n his lit tle leg an d just squeezed it really hard a nd cause d it to bruise.” Ms. Reid said she had ne ver se en bruises like that before , and that they looked like fing erma

rks, “[o]n bot h leg s .

. . [u] p and down his whole leg . . . just all over.” Ms. Reid said these bruises we re not norma l bruises, as they wer e differe n t i n s ever ity . As previously

discussed, the juvenile c ourt terminated the trial home visit the same day , and A.R. wa s place d in a new foster home. Ms. Reid testified t hat s he took A.R . to the doctor the ne x t day . The doctor stated that the bruises did appe ar to be fing erpr i n t s , as they wer e in patter

ns. A.R. tested

ne g a tiv e fo r b loo d d iso rd e rs , w hic h r ule d o ut t he po ssi bil ity of “ or g anic c a us e s” of the br uis ing . M s. Reid testified that when she asked Mother about the bruises, Mother told her she ha d not seen the bruises, but they

could have been f

rom ca rpet burn or

the trampoline. At t ri al , Mother wa s qu e sti on e d a

bo ut t he br uis e s a s f oll ow s:
Q. Di d y ou

se e the br

uis e s o n h is l e g s? A. Ihad see n them at one time like, the da y that we t o o k h i m to the day car e beca use I g et hi m up and get him dresse d, g ive hi m a bath and get him re ady for school. And they wer en’t as bad a s what they seeme d like in the picture as what Ihad see n. Q. Whe n d id you

fi rs t se e the m? A. Iseen the m that night tha t Ihad put him to sleep. And then I woke up the next m orning and they

wer en’t that ba d.

. . . Idid

n’ t r e a lly pa y muc h atte nti on

to t he m be c a use he kic ks the c ri b

a lot

. . . . And so met im es he wo uld tr y to g e t out of

the c ri b a nd kic ks his crib a lot. That’s wher e I thought the bruises had come from, but I had neve r
me nti on e d it

.

. . . Q. You’re older now. Okay

. L et’s just pre tend that y ou wer e re ally naive ba ck then and thoug ht that a child would do t h at t o himself. Do y ou still think that? A. Wel l, n o. B ut he , y ou kn ow , ba bie s, the y do g e t bru ise s. Th e tod dle rs wi ll

a ll g e t br uis e s and so me tim e s y ou

do n’ t kn owwh e re the y

c ome fr om. Q. Ha

ve y ou e ve r s e e n a

no the r c hil d lo ok

lik e that? A. Ihave. Q

. R e a l l y? A. Ihave. Q. Ho w m any

tim e s? A. I ’ve se en about thre e or f our runningaround he re t h at people ne ed to start pa y inga tte nti on to mor e tha n me

. B ut, y ou

kn ow , I do n’ t g o o ff

re po rt ingit just because it looks l ike child abuse

.-12-

Mo the r w e nt o n to a c c us e the da y c are wo rk e rs of

c a us ingA. R.’ s b ru ise s.

Va ri ou s w itn e sse s a lso te sti fi e d a bo ut the pr ob le ms e nc ounte re d in Mo the r’ s f

os te r h ome s. Ms. Stewart testified a

bout Mother being removed from one foster home bec ause the foster mother was “ frustrated with the way that [Mot her] was pa renting [A.R.] .” This was the foster home wher e Mo the r w a s h old ingA. R. i n th e po ol w hil e ho ldi nga c ig are tte , a

nd wh e re sh e le ft

A. R. i n th e ho me with the four y ear old, unattended. The foster m other also repor ted that Mother would not follow the sche dule she put in place fo r A. R

. M o t h er acknow ledg ed that she ha d “some disputes” at the fo ste r h ome , a

nd sh e a c c us e d th e fo ste r m oth e r o f m a kin g ob sc e ne c omm e nts a bo ut he r. Ms. Re id

and the g ua

rd ian a d lit e m the n w or

ke d to arr ang e fo r M oth e r t o b e in t he same fo ste r h ome wi th A .R. beg inning in May

of 2006. Ms. Reid said she thought plac ing the m toge ther would a ssist Mot her in r eac hing her g oals under the perma nency plan beca

use the foste r mother would be a g ood mentor, who could teac h Mother how to pr operly car e for A.R. Ms. Stewart similarly testified that this was “a ve ry g ood foster pa

rent who w as willing to work with [Mother] in teac hing he r how to par ent.” Howeve r, Ms. Stewart e x plained that Mother continued to g o out and “live the life of a te enag er,”

and “ the fo ste r p are nt w a s d oin g mor e of the c are fo r [A. R.] tha n [Mothe r] wa s. ” Ms. Re id s imi larl y te sti fi e d th a t Mo the r w e nt t o “ te e na g e pa rt ie s” on the we e ke nd . M oth e r t e sti fi e d th a t it wa s th is foster mother

who “taug ht” her

that hitting y our child i s appropr iate dis cipline, s tating, “ that’s wher e Ilear ned it from.”

Mother also be came eng ag ed while living at th e foster home with A.R., and Ms. Reid and Ms. Stewart testified they wer e conc erne d about the man be ing around A.R. because he wa s older than Mother, a

nd he had “a rec ord” a

nd “a tr oubled past.” Mo the r’ s f ianc é ha d b e e n c ha

rg e d w ith sexual ex ploitation of a minor. Ms. Stewart, Ms. Kar nes (the guar d i an ad litem), and Mother’s probation office r all attempted to w arn Mother about her f iancé , but Mother disreg arde d their advic e. The juvenile c ourt enter ed some ty pe of r estrainingorder limit ing the fianc é’s c ontact with A.R. At trial, Mother testified that she and he r fianc é we re no long er tog ether , and she e x plained th at approximately

two months before , her fiancé was taken to jail afte r they g ot into an argument and “he thr e w p u n c h e s

. ” T h e ir a lt e r c a ti o nle d

to a d o me s ti c a s s a

u lt c h ar g e an d

ano r d e r o f p r o te c tion being enter ed ag ainst the fianc é.

Mother testified she was taking three medications bec ause of her bi-pola

r disorder : L exapro, Trileptal, and Ser oquel. Mo ther testified she had bee n taking these medic ations for the pa st three to four y ear s. She said she still has mood swing s even w hen she takes the medic ations, but “not as bad as I do when I ’m off my

medication.” Mother ex plained what happens when she quits taking the me dic a tio ns :
My moo d s wi ngg e ts v e ry , v e ry ba d. I t ma

y no t be if Ijus t mi ss o ne da

y be c a us e
s o m e t i m e s I d o t h a tw h e nI h a v e t o g o t o w o r k e ar l y i nt h e m o r

n i n g

. B u tI a l w ays
re me mbe r t o ta

ke the m th e ne xt day

be c a us e Ia lw ay s k

no w w hat ha

pp e ns

.-13-

Mo the r t e sti fi e d s he wa s sexua lly mol e ste d by he r fathe r wh e n she wa s six y e ars old and liv ingin F lor ida . Sh e te sti fi e d s he wa s no t c ouns e le d fo r the se xua l a bu se “ ba c k the n, ” and

sh e su bs e qu e ntl y moved to Tenne ssee to live with her g randpa rents until her mother move d here as we ll.

Ve ldo n Re e dy , th e lic e ns e d cl in ica l so c ia l w or ke r w ho int e rv ie we d M oth e r f or the c ourt

order ed par enting evaluation, testified a s to his findings. His eva luation was base d on two interviews with Mothe r in N ovember of 2007 and revie wing Mother’s r ecor ds from CASA and Quinco, a long with some other leg al documents provide d by Mother’s attorney

. Mr. Reedy noted Mother’ s “long his tor y of e mot ional andenv ir on men tal in st abi li ty ” andsev eral of M ot her’ s ch aract eri st ics th at cou ld impede her

ability to pare nt A.R. Mr. Reedy was pa rticul ar l y concerne d by

Mother’s pr evious diag nosis of “bi-polar disorder w ith serious emotional disturbance .” He said patients with bi-polar dis or de r ne e d c los e ps y c hiatr ic mon ito ri ng , a s th e ir me dic a tio ns c an c a

us e sid e e ff

e c ts o r b e g in t o lose eff ectivene ss over time. Mr. Ree dy opined that Mother would a lway s need psy chiatric car e and medication. Mr. Ree dy

also mentioned that Quinco’ s notes ref lected Mothe r’s history

of being sexually molested; howeve r, he sa id he did not discuss the molestation w ith Mother beca use that wa s not the purpose of

his interviews. Ne x t, Mr. Reedy discussed Mot her’ s past “self- injurious behavior ” and thr eats of suic ide. Quinco’s notes reve aled that Mother had cut herse lf on at least one

occa sion, and she had a lso placed a g un to her he ad and thr eate ned to kill herself. Mr . Reedy discussed Mother’ s “history of poor choice s reg arding male fr iends,” pa rticularly with reg ard to he r fianc é. B ased on his interviews with Mother in November , Mr. R eedy was concer ned that Mother’ s fianc é mig ht c ontinue to show up in he r life, even if uninvited. Mr. Reedy also ref ere nced Mothe r’s pa st c ri min a l be havio r, pa st d ru g and a lc oh ol u se , h e r his tor

y of nume ro us fo ste r c are pla c e me nts , and her decision to quit hig h school. Mr. Reedy said that Mother’s above aver ag e intelligenc e wa s not exhi bited in her insig ht and judg ment.
Mr. Reedy

testified that Quinco a

ppear ed to have provided c ounseling to M o t h er dire cted toward he r bi-polar

disorder a

nd also toward ca s e m anag ement ser vices, whic h, based on the sit ua tio n, ty pic a lly inc lud e any

thi ng fr om mon e y

mana g e me nt s kil ls, job int e rv ie wi ngsk ill s, sk ill s reg ardingcooking or maintaining g ood hy g iene, or “just functions of daily

living ty pe of thin gs.” Mr. R ee dy

testified that Mother ha d a low Global Asse ssment of Func tioning (“ GAF ”) sc ore,
a c c or din g to Q uin c o’ s n ote s, wh ic h mea nt that sh e ha d im

pe dim e nts to n or

ma l f un c tio nin g . H e a lso

e xpla ine d th a t t he GAF s c or e c ou ld b e us e d to mon ito r p ro g re ss, in t hat it sh ou ld i nc re a se wi th t r e a t m e n tt h r o u g h m e d i c a t i o nan d t h e r a p y. Despite Mother ’s medication and thera py , howeve r, her

score had not improved. Quinc o’s notes docume nted Mother’ s “bac k and for th” progre ss, he said, such as “ littl e progr es s , littl e prog ress, some pr og ress, no prog ress.” Mr. Reedy also noted that Qu inc o’ s r e c or ds re fl e c te d M oth e r h a d mi sse d s ome of he r c ouns e lin g se ssi on s.

Mr . Re e dy

me nti on e d th a t Mo the r, to h is k no wl e dg e , ha d ne ve r re c e ive d tr e a tme nt f or po st traumatic stre ss disorder sec ondary to her sex ual abuse at the ag e of six. Mr. Reedy stated that he did not reca ll seeing the diag nosis of post traumatic stress disorde r in Quinco’s notes, and that was why he conc luded that Mother ha d not be en treated for it, but he reiter ated, “I don’t know that she wasn’t tre ated.” He e x plained that “[v]ictim s of sexual abuse who go untre ated tend to have dy sfunctional fa

mily and peer relationships for y ear s following their abuse ,” and he noted Mother-14-

had diffic ulties with her mother a nd others. He said, “all these interac tions and li fe diff iculties may not be re lated to her

sexual abuse,” but it could not be ruled out as a ca use and should be a ddresse d in long- term counse ling.
The guardia

n ad litem asked Mr . Reedy about Mother’ s previous statements indicating a n intent to harm A.R., and their r elation to Mother’s bi-pola r disorder. Mr. Reedy

expressed conc ern, stating that a person with bi- polar disorder could act upon such thoughts. He testified that Mother’s abuse of A.R. seemed to be a produc t of her impulsivity and ang er issues.

I n conclusion, Mr. Ree dy testified that Mother w as not prepa red to a ssume the responsibilities of pare nting A.R. Mr. Reedy conclude d that Mother would “c ontinue to display patte rn s of imp uls ivi ty , hy pe r- e mot ion a lity and dy sf un c tio n in he r r e la tio ns hip s” until she rece ived i n t e n s i v e p s y c h o t h e r a

p y t r e a t m e n t f

o r b o t h b i

- p o l ar d i s o r d e r an d p o s tt r a u m a t i c s t r e s s d i s o r d e r

. In

a dd iti on , M r. Re e dy

re c omm e nd e d th a t Mo the r c on tin ue to r e c e ive c a se mana g e me nt s e rv ic e s to addre ss the issues of m oney manag ement, decision making , and socia l skill s. He a lso advised that Mo the r b e re qu ir e d to a tte nd on g oin g pa

re nti ngc la sse s, ang e r m a

na g e me nt c la sse s, and

“ a pp ro pr ia te activities of daily

liv i ng ” cla sses. Fina lly , Mr. Reedy rec ommended that Mother c ontinue her ps y c hiatr ic tr e a tme nt a

nd me dic a tio n, and be re qu ir e d to su bmi t to pe ri od ic ra

nd om d ru g sc re e ns

. Mr. Reedy

testified that Mother would ne ed to follow all these r ecommendations consistently for a minimum of one y ear , and if Mother ’s treatment was not continuous, that would extend the period of trea tment. Mother’s counsel asked Mr. Reedy if it would then be possible for Mother to pare nt A.R., if she followed a ll of his recommendations, to which Mr. Reedy responde d:

Idon’t know. I

wo u l d – I ’m in the business of hope. A s far as the ther apy , . . . I would hope any

body could that stay ed in treatment, m an age d the medication

corr ectly . Icannot sa

y that she will ever

be able to pare nt.

Th e g ua rd ian a d li te m st a te d tha t she did no t bel ie ve A. R. c ou ld b e sa fe in M oth e r’ s h ome becaus e o f th e p a s t a

b u s e an d M o th e r ’ s is s u e s w it h h e r b i- p o la

r d is o r d e r

. M s

. Re id s tate d her opinion that Mother’s pare ntal rig hts should be ter minated, and she explained that she “would not consider [A.R.] safe in his mother’s ca re beca use of the c onsistency

with the bruises and the abuse.” Ms. Ste wa

rt sim ila rl y te sti fi e d th a t she did no t thin k Moth e r ha d the a bil ity to a de qu a te ly

pa re nt A .R. Ms. Stewart pointed out that A .R. ha d been in D CS custody since he was five months old, and, a s he wa s c ur

re ntl y tw o a nd a ha lf y e ars old , h e had been in th e c us tod y of his c ur re nt f os te r p a re nts lon g e r t ha n h e ha d li ve d w ithMo the r. A. R.’ s c ur re nt f os te r p arent s tes ti fi e d th a t th e y lov e d A .R. very much and wishe d to adopt him. They also testified t hat A.R

. was doing well in their home, a nd that he ca lls them “mommy ” and “ daddy .”

On F e br ua ry 5, 20 08 , the j uv eni le court e nte re d it s f

ina l or de r. Th e c ourt

fo un d th a t D CS failed to prove , by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e, the first g round for terminating Mother’s pa renta l ri g hts : su bs tanti a l no nc omp lia

nc e wi th the pe rm ane nc y pla ns

. Th e c ourt fo un d tha t Moth e r d id f a il to complete the r equire d counseling , but it noted the perma nency plan’s other require ments, such as pare nting classes and medication manag ement, which Mothe r complete d. Howeve r, the c ourt found-15-

that DCS had proven the se cond g round for terminating Mother’s pa renta l r i gh t s : persistence of cond i t i o n s , pursuant to Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 36-1-113(g )(3) . The c ourt found that de sp ite the re a so na

ble e ff or ts of DC S to a ssi st Mo the r, the c on dit ion s that le d to the re mov a l of A. R. fro m M o t h er ’s home still ex isted, along with other conditions that in a ll p ro ba bil ity wo uld c a us e A.R. to be subject to f

urther abuse and/or neg lect. I n addition, the court found little likelihood that these c onditions would be remedied at an ea rly date to allow the r eturn of A .R., and that continuing the pa re nt- c hil d r e latio ns hip wo uld g re a tly dim ini sh A. R.’ s c ha nc e s of e arl y int e g ra

tio n in to a sta ble

and pe rm ane nt h ome . Re g ard ingA. R.’ s f a the r, the c ourt fou nd c le ar a nd c on vin c inge vid e nc e to te rm inate his pa

re nta l r ig hts on th e g ro un d o f a ba nd on me nt. Th e c ourt

a lso fo un d th a t it

wa s in A.R.’s best intere st to terminate the par ental rig hts of Mother and A .R.’s father

. Mother timely

filed a notice of appe al.

II. I SSU ES P R ESENTED Mother pre sents the following issues, as we pe rce ive them, for r eview:

1. Whether the juvenile c ourt err ed in applying T ennesse e Code Annotat ed s ec t ion 36-1- 113(g )(3) , beca

use A.R. was not “ remove d from the home of the par ent or guardia

n by order of a c ourt fo r a pe ri od of six ( 6) mon ths ,” a s r e qu ir e d b y the statut e ; 2. Wheth er the juv e nil e c ourt e rr e d in fi nd ingthat D CS ma de re a so na ble e ff or ts t o r e un ite Mother and A .R., as require d when ter minating pare ntal rig hts pur suant to Tennesse e Code Annotated se ction 36-1-113( g )(3) ; 3. Whe the r t

he juv e nil e c ourt e rr e d in c on c lud ingtha t it wa s in A. R.’ s b e st i nte re st t o te rm inate Mo the r’ s p are nta l r ig hts

.
DC S do e s n ot a

pp e a l th e tr ia l c ourt ’s fi nd ingba se d o n th e g ro un d o f s ub sta nti a l nonc omp lia

nc e wi th the pe rm ane nc y

pla n, and A. R.’ s fathe r do e s no t a pp e a l the te rm inatio n of his pa re nta l ri g hts . T hu s, the on ly iss ue be fo re us is whe the r t he juv e nil e c ourt pr op e rl y te rm inate d M oth e r’ s p are nta l r ig hts under Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 36-1-113( g )(3)

.

III

. S T ANDARD S F OR R E VI E W I NG T E RM I NAT I ON C A SES
“A biolog ical par ent’s rig ht to the car e and custody of his or her child is a mong the oldest of the judicially

rec og nized liberty

interests protec ted by

the Due Proc ess Clauses of the f eder al and state constitutions.” In re Audre y S. , 182 S.W .3d 838, 860 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) ( citing Troxel v. Gran v ill e , 5 3 0 U

. S

. 5 7 , 65 (2 00 0) ; Hawk v . H awk , 8 55 S.W. 2d

57 3, 57 8- 79 (T e nn . 1 99 3) ; Ray v

. Ray , 83 S.W .3d 726, 731 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)). Althoug h this right is fundame ntal and super ior to the claims of other

persons a

nd the g overnme nt, it is not absolute. Id. The p ar en t ’s right “continues w ithout i nterruption only as long as a pa

rent ha s not relinquished it, abandone d it, or eng ag ed in conduc t requiringits li mitation or termination.” Id. ; see also In r eM. J. B. , 140 S.W .3d 643, 653 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).-16-

I n Tenne ssee, pr ocee dings to ter minate a pa

rent’s pare ntal rig hts a

re g overne d by

statute. In

re Audre y S. , 182 S.W .3d at 860. A cour t may not terminate a pare nt’s rig hts to his or her childre n unless there is spe cific statutory authority to do so. Os bo rn v

. M arr , 127 S.W .3d 737, 739 (Tenn. 20 04 ). “ Part ie s w ho have sta nd ingto s e e k th e te rm inatio n o f a bi ol og ic a l pa

re nt’ s p are nta l r ig hts must prove two things.” In re A udre y S. , 1 82 S.W. 3d

a t 86 0; see also In r eM. J. B. , 140 S.W .3d at 65 3

. F ir s t, th e y mu s t p r o v e th e e xis te n c e o f a t le a s t o n e o f th e s tatuto r y g r o u n d s for termination, which ar e listed in T ennesse e Code Annotated section 36-1- 113(g ). Id. Second, they must prove that terminating pare ntal rig hts is in t he child’s be st interest, consider ing, a m o ng other thing s, the fac tors listed in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 36-1-113(i). Id. Be cause no civil action ca rries g ra ve r c on se qu e nc e s th an a

pe tit ion to s e ve r f

a mil y tie s f or e ve r, a pe rs on seeki ng to t e rm inate pare ntal rig hts must prove both of the elements for termination by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e. Id. at 860-61. In sum, “[t] o terminate pa rent al ri gh t s , a trial c ourt must determine by clea r and convincingevidenc e not only the exist ence of at lea st one of the statutory g rounds for te rmination but also that termination is in the child’s best interest.” In r eF.R .R. , I II , 1 9 3 S.W.3d 528, 530 (T en n

. 2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i n g In re Vale ntine , 79 S.W .3d 539, 546 (Tenn. 2 0 0 2 )) . Clear a nd convincing evidenc e has be en def

ined as evidenc e that “eliminates any serious or substantial doubt conc erning the corr ectne ss of

the conc lusion to be drawn f rom the evide nce.” In r eL. J. C. , 124 S.W .3d 609, 619 (T en n

. C t

. Ap p

. 2 0 0 3 ) ( qu o t i n g In the Matter of: C.D.B., S.S.B ., & S.E.B. , 37 S.W .3d 925, 927 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000)) . I t produce s a firm be lief or c onviction in the fac t-finder ’s mind reg arding the truth of the f

acts soug ht to be established. In r eAudre y S. , 182 S.W .3d at 861.

B e c a us e of the he ig hte ne d b ur de n o f p ro of in pa re nta l te rm inatio n c a se s, on a pp e a l, w e mus t adapt our customary standard of revie w as set f orth in Tennesse e Rule of Appe llate Proce dure 13( d). In r eAudre

y S. , 182 S.W .3d at 861. Fir st, we re view ea ch of the trial co u rt ’s spec ific fa ctual fi nd ing s de novo in acc ordanc e with Rule 13(d), pr esuming the finding to be cor rec t u n l es s the evidenc e preponde rate s ag ainst it. Id. Second, we must determine whe ther the f acts (e ither as f

ound by the t r i a l c o u rto r

a s s u p p o rt e d b y t h e p r e p o n d e r an c e o f

t h e e v i d e n c e ) c l e ar l y

an d c o n v i n c i n g ly establish the eleme nts require d to terminate pa renta l rig hts. Id. Whe ther a statutory g round for termination has bee n proven by the re quisite standard of e vidence is a question of law to be revie wed d e n o v o w it

h n o p r e s u mp ti o n o f c o r

r e ctness. In re A do

ption o f A .M .H. , 215 S.W .3d 793, 810 (T e nn . 2 00 7) ; In re B.T. , No. M2007-01607-COA- R3-PT, 2008 WL 276012, at *2 (Te nn. Ct. App. Jan. 31 , 2 00 8) ; Sta te De

p’ t of Chil dr e n’ s Se rv s. v . L .H. , N o

. M 2 0 0 7

- 0 0 1 7 0

- CO A

- R3

- PT , 2 0 0 7 WL 2471500, at *3 (Te nn. Ct. App. Aug . 31, 2007).

IV. D I S CUS S I ON

A. Pe rsi ste nc eof Cond itions-17-

I n th is a pp e a l, w e are de a lin g wi th t he statut or

y g ro un d f or te rm inatio n o f p are nta l r ig hts commonly

ref err ed to as “ persistenc e of c onditions,” define d in Tennesse e Code Annotated sec tion 36 -1 -1 13 (g )( 3) a s f

oll ow s:

The c hi l d has bee n remove d from the home of the par ent or guardia

n by order of a court for a per iod of six (6) months and: (A ) T he c on dit ion s th a t le d to the chi ld ’s rem ov a l or oth e r c on dit ion s th a t in

a ll

rea sonable proba

bilit y wo uld cause the child to be subjec ted to further abuse or

ne g le c t and

that, t he re fo re , pre ve nt t

he c hil d’ s sa fe re tur

n to the c are of

the pa re nt( s)

or g ua rd ian( s) , s til l pe rs ist ; (B ) T he re is l itt le lik e lih oo d that the se c on dit ion s wi ll be re me die d at an e arl y date so that the child ca

n be saf ely return ed t o t h e p arent(s) or guardia n(s) in the ne ar future; a nd (C ) T he c on tin

uatio n o f t

he pa re nt o r g ua rd ian a nd c hil d rel ati on ship g re a tly diminis hes the c hild’s chanc es of e arly integ ration into a safe , stable and pe rmane nt ho me ;

. . . . This g round for termination only applies “whe re the prior cour t order r emoving the child from the pare nt’s home was based on a judicial finding of depe ndency , neg lect, or a buse.” In r eAudre

y S. , 182 S.W .3d at 874.
On appe al, Mother argues that this gr ound for ter mination is i napplicable beca use A.R. was not “re moved from the home of the pa rent or guardian b y

order of a c ourt for a

period of six (6) months,” as re quired by

the statute. As pre viously discussed, the juvenile court e ntere d an orde r on Ap ri l 4, 20 06 , f

oll ow ing an ad

jud ic a tor y and dis po sit ion a l he ari ng , e xplic itl y fi nd ingthat A .R. wa s, in f a c t, d e pe nd e nt a

nd ne g le c te d a

nd or de ri ngthat A .R. re main in DC S c us tod y . D CS f

ile d it s pe tit ion to te rm inate Mo the r’ s par e nta l rig hts on June 5, 20 07

. Mo the r ar g ue s, tho ug h, that be c a us e of the interve ning tr ial home visit, A.R. had only been “ removed ” fr o m her home f or two months at the time of the te rmination petition. She also argues that bec ause this “most rec ent re moval” wa s not based on a

nother judicial findingof depe ndency , neg lect, o r ab u s e, i t does not satisfy the elements of the s tatute. Mother does not cite any authority to support either of the se ar g uments, and from ou r re v i ew o f t he re cord, it does not appe ar that Mother ra ised these a rg uments in the trial court. Ne verthe less, we ha ve conside red Mother ’s ar g uments and find them without merit.

Acc ording to the statute, the g round of “ persistenc e of c onditions” is applicable whe n “[t] he child has been remove d from the home of the par ent or guardia

n by order of a c ourt for a period of

s i x (6 ) mo nths

. ” T e n n

. C o d e A n n

. § 3 6

- 1

- 1 1 3 ( g ) ( 3 ) ( S u p p

. 2 0 0 7 ) ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d )

. T h e s t a tut e does not requir e that the six -month period immediately prec ede the filing of the termination petition,

a s Mo the r a ssume s. Th e Ge ne ra l Asse mbl y e xplic itl y pla c e d suc h limit a tio ns on the re le va

nt t ime periods for

other ter mination gr ounds, but it did not do so here

. See, e .g. , Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1- 102(1)( A)(i) (providing the rel ev an t t i me per iod in the context of abandonment as the “ four ( 4)

consec utive months im mediately prec eding the filing of a proce eding or plea ding to ter minate the pa re nta l r ig hts of

the pa re nt” ). Th e g ro un d a t iss ue in thi s c a se on ly re qu ir e s r e mov a l f ro m th e ho me-18-

by order of a c ourt for “ a per iod of six (6) months.” Te nn. Code Ann. § 3 6 -1 -1 1 3 (g) (3 ) (Supp. 20 07 ). F ur

the rm or e , the “ tr ia l ho me vis it” did no t r e tur n c us tod y of A. R. t o M oth e r. Th e juv e nil e court’s order approvingthe trial home visit expl icitly stated, “the child, [A.R.] , shall remain in the custody of the State of T ennesse e, De partment of Children[’s] Services pendingfurther order from this Court.” W e re

ject Mother’ s argument that a second judicial finding of depe ndency , neg lect, or

a b u s e w a s r e qu i r e d

w h e nA

. R

. w a s r e m o v e d f r o m h e r h o m e , w h e nM o t h e r

o n l y h a d t e mp o r a r y, phy sical custody

of A.R. in the first plac e.

B. R e as ona ble

Ef fo rts

I n case s involving the re moval of a ch i l d fr o m t h e parent’s c ustody , the succ ess of the pare nt’s reme dial eff

orts g ener ally

depends on D CS’s assistance and suppor t. In r eGior

gia nna H

. , 2 0 5 S

. W

. 3 d 5 0 8 , 5 1 8 (T en n

. C t

. Ap p

. 2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i n g In re C.M.M

. , No. M2003-01122-COA- R3-PT, 20 04 WL43 83 26 , at *7 ( Te nn . Ct . App . M ar. 9, 20 04 ); Sta te De p’ t of Chi ldr e n’

s S e rv s. v . D e ma rr , No. M 2 0 0 2-02603-COA- R3-J V, 2003 WL 21946726, at *10 (Te nn. Ct. App. Aug . 13, 2003)). “Ac cording ly , in the absenc e of ag g ravating c ircumstance s, the Depa rtment is statutorily

require d to make re asonable eff

orts to r eunite a family afte r removing children from their pare nts’ custody .” Id. (c iti ng Te nn

. Cod e Ann. § 37 -1 -1 66 (a )( 2) , ( g )( 2) (2 00 5) ; In re M .E. , No. M2003-00859-COAR3- PT, 20 04 WL 18 38 17 9, a t *9 (T e nn . Ct . App . Aug . 1 6, 20 04 ); In re C.M.M

. , 2004 WL 438326,

a t * 7 ). Spe c if

ic a lly , DC S is re qu ir e d by statut e to make “ re a so na ble e ff or ts” to make it “ po ssi ble for the c hild to return safe ly to the child’s home.” T enn. Code Ann. § 37-1-166( a)( 2), (g )(2) (2005). Be cause of this obligation, whe n DCS seeks to terminate pa renta l rig hts on t h e gro und of “per sistence of

condition s , ” it must establish by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that it made

rea sonab l e ef

fo rt s t o reunite the family and that these eff

orts wer e to no ava il. Id. (c i t i n g In re C.M.M. , 2004 WL 438326, at *7-8). DC S ’s ef forts need not be “he rcule an,” but it must do more than simply provide parents wit h a list of available service s and send them on their way

. Id. at 519 (c i t i n g In re C.M.M

. , 2004 WL 438326, at *7). DCS ’s employ ees “ must use their superior insig ht and tra ining to assist the par ents in addre ssing a nd completingthe tasks identified in the pe rmane ncy plan.” Id. (c i t i n g In re A.J .H. , N o. M2 00 5- 00 17 4- CO A- R3- PT, 20 05 WL31 90 32 4, a t *9 (T e nn . Ct

. Ap p. No v. 28 , 2 00 5) ; In re J .L.E. , No. M2004-02133-COA- R3-PT, 2005 W L15418 6 2 , at *14 (Te nn. Ct. Ap p. June 30 , 2 00 5) ; In re D.D .V. , No. M2001 -02282-COA-R3-J V, 2002 WL 225891, at *8 (T e nn . Ct . App . F e b. 14, 20 02 )). On the oth e r h and , D CS “ do e s n ot h a ve the so le ob lig a tio n to

reme dy the conditions that require d the re moval of the c hildren fr om th ei r p ar ents’ custody .” Id. When reunification of the family is a g oal, the par ents s h ar e re s ponsibili ty for a ddressing the conditions that le d to removal. Id. Reunification is a “two-way street,” and the law does not requir e DCS to car

ry the entire burden of

this goa l. State Dep’t of Children’s Servs. v. S.M.D. , 200 S.W .3d 18 4, 19 8 ( Te nn . Ct . App . 2 00 6) . D CS c ann ot r e a so na bly be e xpe c te d to do eve ry thi ng fo r a

pa re nt. I n reT

. M

. D

. Y. , No. E2007-02 3 57-COA-R3-PT, 2008 WL933204, at *7 (Te nn. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 20 08 ). I f pa

re nts de sir e the re tur

n of the ir c hil dr e n, the y

mus t a lso make “ re a so na

ble and a pp ro pr ia te

e ff orts to r e ha

bil itate the mse lve s and

to r e me dy

the c on dit ion s th a t r e qu ir e d th e De pa rtme nt t o
remove their childre n from their c ustody .” I n r e G i o r gia n n a H. , 205 S.W .3d at 519 (c i t i n g Sta te Dep’ t of Chi ldren's Servs. v. B.B.M

. , No. E 2 0 0 4-00491-COA- R3-PT, 2004 W L2607769, at *7-19-

(T e nn . Ct . App . N ov . 1 7, 20 04 ); In re C.M.M

. , 2 00 4 WL

43 83 26 , at *7 ; In re R.C.V. , No. M2001- 02102-COA-R3-JV, 2002 WL 31730899, at *12 (Te nn. Ct. App. Nov.18, 2002)).

“ Re a so na ble e ff or ts” by DC S me ans “ the e xer c ise o f reas on a ble c are and

dil ig e nc e

. . . to provide ser

vices re lated to me eting the needs of the child and the f amily .” Te nn. Code Ann. § 37-1- 166(g )(1) (2005). In making such re asonabl e ef fo rts, “the c hild’s health and sa fety shall be the para mount concer

n.” Id. What is “reasona

ble” de pends on the c ircumstance s of ea ch ca se, but the fa c tor s th a t c ourt s u se to d e te rm ine the re a so na ble ne ss o f D CS’ s e ff

or ts i nc lud e :
(1 ) t h e re as o n s fo r s ep ar at i n g t h e p ar en tfr o m h i s o r h er ch i l dre n , (2 ) t h e p ar en t 's p h y s i ca l an d

m en t al ab i l i t i es , (3 ) t h e r es o u rc es av ai l ab l e t o t h e p ar en t , (4 ) t h e p ar en t 's eff orts to r emedy the conditions that r equire d the remova l of the child re n , (5 ) t he

re s o u rc es av ai l ab l e t o t h e D ep ar t m en t , (6 ) t h e du ra t i o nan d ex t en to f t h e p ar en t 's

reme dial eff

orts, and (7) the closene ss of the fit betwe en the c onditions t hat led to the initial removal of the childre n, the re quirements of the perma nency plan, and the De pa rtme nt' s e ff

or ts.

In r eGior gia nna H

. , 205 S.W .3d at 519 (c i t i n g In re C.M .C. , No. E2005-00328- COA-R3-PT, 2005 WL 18 27 85 5, a t *9 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . A ug . 3 , 2 00 5) ; State Dep't of Children' s Servs. v . B.B.M. , 2004 WL26 07 76 9, a t *6 ; In re C.M.M

. , 2004 WL 438326, at *7).
The stated g oal of the pe rmane ncy p l an s in this case wa s reunific ation; thus, DCS was
re qu ir e d to us e re a so na

ble e ff or ts to make it po ssi ble fo r A. R. to re tur n ho me to Mo the r. We m us t de te rm ine wh e the r DCS pr e se nte d “su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e re g ard ingits re un if ic a tio n e ff

or ts t o e na ble the tri e r-of

-fa ct to conclude , without any serious or substantial doubt, that the De partment’s r emedial eff orts wer e reasonable under a ll the circumstanc es.” In th eMa tte r o f J .L .E. , No. M2004-02133- C OA -R 3 -P T , 2 0 0 5 W L 1 5 4 1 8 6 2 , at * 1 2 (T en n

. C t

. Ap p

. J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g In re C.M.M. , 2004 WL43 83 26 , at *8 ). Th e juv e nil e c ourt fo un d tha t D CS us e d r e a so na ble e ff or ts t o a ssi st M oth e r w ith her pr oblems throug h the Timber Springs evaluation and counseling, which the cour t describe d as “cr itical,” alongwith the supervised visitation and ar rang ing f or Mother a

nd A.R. to be place d in the

same fo ste r h ome fo r m e nto ri ng purp os e s. De sp ite the se e ff or ts, the c ourt fo un d that Mo the r “ c ou ld not avail her self of the opportunities to make a sig nificant c hang e.”

On a pp e a l, M oth e r c la ims that D CS sh ou ld h a ve “ a dd re sse d” the fa c t t hat Mo ther wa s a “tee nag e mother,” and it should have considere d that Mother was forc ed to rely upon her ow n mother to p ro vid e he r wi th sta

ble ho us ing and tr ans po rt a tio n. We fi nd that D CS di d ma

ke re a so na

ble e ff or ts to help Mother with the se issues. DCS paid for Mother to attend pare nting c lasses throug h the Carl Perkins Center. Mother

testified that “[t] hey

came to the house sometimes, and then other times they transport[ed] me there.” Reg ardingMother’s housing situation, DCS arr ang ed for Mother to be place d in the same foste r home with A.R., but rathe r than take advanta g e of the s i t u at i o n , i t was repor ted that Mother we nt out and “lived the life of a teena g er” and lef t the foster mother

to car e for A.R. DCS refer

red Mother

to two differ ent counselors, and even s et up appointments for he r, so that she could re ceive case manag ement ser vices a ddressing functions of da ily living. Howeve r, Mother-20-

consistently

failed to attend counseling afte r she left foster car e. Mother would simply quit going to counseling without even informi n g h er Case Mana g er. She nowclaims that she did not have transportation to counseling beca use, althoug h she had a

driver’ s license, she did not have a c ar of her own and rode with he r mother. Mother had pr eviously been pr ovided with transportation to her pare nting c lasses, but she did not repor t to DCS that she had any

problems ar

rang ing tr ansportation to counseling

. When asked why she di d not tell her Case Manag er that she nee ded tra nsportation, Mo the r s imp ly

re pli e d, “ Wel l, I

wa s w or kin g a ll the tim e .” I t app e ars that Mo the r h a d n o p ro ble ms finding transportation to wo rk eve ry day , but she could not manag e to attend he r counse ling appointments ever

y two wee ks. M o t h er l at er admitted that she did not even ke ep tra ck of he r counseling appointments, and she r elied on her mother to tell her whe n to go to c ounseling

. I n s ho rt , we fi nd that D CS ma de re a so na

ble e ff or ts t o a ssi st M oth e r w iththe pr ob le ms s he e nc ounte re d a s a teena g e mother living with her mother.

Ne xt, Mo the r ar g ue s tha t DCS fa ile d to mak e re a so na ble e ff or ts to a ssi st h e r b e c a

us e it d id not provide her

with the “most obvious and ess enti al servic e” she neede d: counseling for posttraumatic stress disorde r. Mother a rg ues that the counse ling she was provide d was “ a wa ste of tim e and mon e y ” be c a

us e it d id n ot a dd

re ss t he “ ro ot” of her pro bl ems ste mmi ngfr om h e r p a st sexual abuse.

I n case s involving a pa

rent with known ment a l h e a lt h d e f ic ie n c ie s , “we have r epeatedly found that the Depa

rtment’s fa ilure to provide ne eded psycholog ical or psychiatric treatment constitutes a failure to exercise reasona ble ef forts.” In re

R.L .F. , N o

. M 2 0 0 8

- 0 0 0 5 0

- CO A

- R3

- PT , 2 0 0 8 WL 3 0 6 9 5 8 8 , at * 1 0 (T en n

. C t

. Ap p

. J u l y 3 1 , 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g In re A.R. , No. M2007-00618-COA- R3-PT, 20 07 WL 43 57 83 7 (T e nn

. Ct. Ap p. De c . 1 3, 20 07 ); Sta te of T e nn esse e, D e

p't o f Ch ild re n's S e rv s.
v . M .R .N. , N o. M2 00 6- 01 70 5- CO A- R3- PT, 20 07 WL 12 00 38 (T e nn . Ct . App . Jan 17 , 2 00 7) ; Sta te of T e nn esse e, D e

p't o f Ch ild re n's Se rv

s. v . H owa rd , N o

. W2 0 0 6

- 0 0 5 8 5

- CO A

- R3

- PT , 2 0 0 6 WL 22 57 34 1 ( Te nn . Ct . App . A ug . 8 , 2 00 6) ; State of Tennessee, Dep't of Children' s Servs. v . S.V. , No. E2 00 6- 00 68 6- CO A- R3- PT, 20 06 WL18 64 47 0 ( Te nn . C t. App

. J uly 6, 20 06 ); In re J

.L.E. , No. M2 00 4- 02 13 3- CO A- R3- PT, 20 05 WL15 41 86 2 ( Te nn

. Ct

. App. June 30 , 2 00 5) ; In re M .E. , No. M2003-00859-COA- R 3 -P T , 2004 WL 1838179 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug . 16, 2004)). How ever , we must de termine what constitutes “ rea sonable” eff orts based on the circ umstances of the ca se bef

ore
us. In r eGior

gia nna H

. , 205 S.W .3d at 518.

We find it int ere sting that Moth er n o w cl aim s she should have be en provide d additional counseling , when Mother did not complete the c o u n s eling that was provide d. Although the trial

c ourt fo un d th a t Mo the r d id s ub sta nti a lly c omp ly wi th t he pe rm ane nc y

pla n a s a wh ole , it sp e c if ic a lly fo un d s he ha d n ot c omp le te d th e re qu ir e d c ouns e lin g . T he fi na l or de r s ta te s:

[Mot her] has not compl eted her counse ling. DCS first obtained a ps y c ho log ic a l e va lua

tio n o f [M oth e r] f

ro m T imb e r S pr ing s. She wa s se nt b y DC S to Profess i o n al Hea lth Services (PHS) but she quit. She missed more than 10 appointments and they

closed he r file. She did not tell DCS or ask f or help. When DCS found out , they then paid for her t o g o to Quinco Mental He alth Center a nd setThe a fore mentioned ca ses in which DCS did not u s e rea sonable e fforts in providing 6 psychological or psyc hiatric tre atment ar e distinguishable. In those ca ses, this Court found a lack of re asonable eff

orts when DCS failed to pro v i d e n ee ded counse ling that had been r ecommende d since its initial involvement in the ca se, see In r e M. E. , 2 00 4 W L 1 83 81 79 , a t *7 -1 2, wh e n D CS prema turely filed a

termination petition, see In r e J. L. E.
, 20 05 W L 1 54 18 62 , a t *1 0- 15 , w he n D CS didno t pr ov ide pa

re nts ’ c ou ns e lor s wi th the pa re nts ’ ps yc ho log ic a l re po rt s a ndre c omm e nd a tio ns , see In r e A.R

. , 2007 WL 4357837, a t *7, Sta te v . S. V.
, 2006 WL 1864470, at *4-7, a nd wher e the

rec ord did not evidenc e “a ny service s” provided to a id a pare nt with a persona lity dis order
, see Sta te
v . Ho war d , 2006 WL 2257341, a t *6. Those circ umstances a re not pre sent here

.
-21- up he r ap po intme nts

. She re c e ive d co un se lin g and c a se mana g e me nt se rv ic e s. Ca se manag ement i n cluded a

ng er ma nag ement, budg eting , pare nting a nd independe nt living skills. She attended spora dically from 4/07 - 7/07 and quit beca use she moved to Milan, TN. She did not beg in counseling ag ain until 4 months later in 11/07.

Mother testified that it was “a hassle” for her to g o to c ounseling at Quinco ever y other we ek. She then quit goingto her a

ppointments at Quinco, eve n though the p et i t i o n to terminate he r par ental ri g hts had bee n f

ile d ju st o ne mon th e arl ie r, and sh e kn e w c ouns e lin g wa s “ vit a l” to h e r s uc c e ss
un de r t he pe rm ane nc y

pla ns

.

I n a ny e ve nt, fr om o ur

re vie w o f t

he re c or d, we have c on c lud e d th a t D CS’ s e ff or ts t o a ssi st Mo the r w e re re a so na

ble

. At tr ia l, M r. Re e dy

state d th a t he did

no t di sc us s th e se xua l a

bu se wi th 6 Mother, and he did not know whether Mother h ad , in fac t, been c ounseled re g ardingthe sexual abuse. Mother

testified that she wa s not counseled f or the a buse whe n it o ccur

red, nor did she

rec eive a ny ty pe of c ounseling pri or to DCS’s involvement. Howeve r, Mother te stified that she discussed the sex ual abuse with her counselors at Timber S pring s, during both her a dmissions , and ag ain at Profe ssional Health Servic es and at Quinco. Mr. Ree dy stated that he d i d n o t re v i ew the

rec ords from Timber

Sprin gs , and he did not mention re viewing any rec ords from Profe ssional He al t h S er v i ce s

. As t h e t ri al co u rt n o t edi ni t s fi n a l o rd er , t h e t re at m en tt ea m at T i mb er S p ri n gs issued its evaluation with knowledg e of Mother ’s past sexual abuse a nd her bi-pola

r condition. The Ti mbe r S pr ing s e va luatio n p ro vid e s, in r e le va nt p art :

The tre atment t ea m has re commended that the court c onsider a c ontinuation of

c omm un ity -b a se d s e rv ic e s to inc lud e a str ic t mo nit or ingof

[Mot he r]’ s b e havio r i n the community

and at home. B oth [ Mother] and her mother could bene fit from being involved in pa

renting classes. To improve the communication betwee n [Mot her] and he r m oth e r, in- ho me fa

mil y c ouns e lin g is re c omm e nd e d. [Mothe r] c ou ld a lso be ne fi t from ange r mana g ement counse ling a nd she will need to c ontinue her me dication

mana g e me nt a

pp oin tme nts

. Timber Spring s issued its treatment rec ommendations following Mother’s thre e-w eek a dmission at Ti mbe r S pr ing s, and

the e va luatio n d oe s n ot s pe c if ic a lly re c omm e nd

c ouns e lin g fo r po st tra

umatic stress di sorder

. Thus, we conclude that even if Mother did not rec eive suc h counseling , DCS acted-22-

rea sonably

in its efforts to assist Mother by providing eac h of the ser

vices re commended by

Timber Springs.

I n sum, we conc lude that DCS’s eff orts wer e reasonable , and Mot her’ s were not, under the circ umstances. DCS provided numer ous service s to Mother in addition to those rec ommended by Timber Spring s. Mother re ceive d pare nting c lasses, counse ling to addr ess her bi-polar a

nd ang er issues, case manag ement ser vices, medic ation managem en t , supervised visitation with A.R., the op po rt un ity to liv e wi th A. R. in a fo ste r h ome , a

nd a tr ia l ho me vis it w ithA. R. D CS in iti a lly se t a g oal targ et date of

one y ear from the pe rmane ncy

plan, but it ex tended the g o al t ar get date an additional two months. S till, M other wa s not ready t o p ro v i d e a sa fe a

nd stable environme nt for A.R. Two m onths afte r t he goal targ et date had passe d, DCS filed its petit ion to terminate Mother’ s pa re nta l r ig hts . We a g re e wi th t he tr ia l c ourt

that th e se c on sti tut e d “ re a so na ble e ff or ts” by DC S. DCS ex erc ised “re asonable car e and diligenc e . . . to provide service s relate d to meeting the nee ds of the child and the family ,” with A.R .’s hea lth and safe ty being the par amount conce rn. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1- 166(g )(1) (2005) ( defining rea sonable e ffor ts).
On appe al, Mother doe s not address the r emaining elements of the “p er s i stence of conditions” g round for

terminating her pa

renta l rig hts. I n addition to t h e s i x -month period of

re mov a l and

re a so na ble e ff or ts, DC S wa s a lso re qu ir e d to pr ov e tha t:
(A ) T he c on dit ion s th a t le d to the c hil d’ s r e moval or ot he r c on dit ion s th a t in a ll

rea sonable proba

bility would cause the child to be subjec ted to further ab u s e or
ne g le c t and

that, t he re fo re , pre ve nt t

he c hil d’ s sa fe re tur

n to the c are of

the pa re nt( s)

or g ua rd ian( s) , s til l pe rs ist ; (B ) T he re is l itt le lik e lih oo d that the se c on dit ion s wi ll be re me die d at an e arl y date so that t h e ch i l d ca n be saf ely returne d to the pare nt(s) or guardia n(s) in the ne ar future; a nd (C ) T he c on tin

uat io n of the pa

re nt o r gua

rd ian a nd c hil d r e la tio ns hip g re a tly diminis hes the c hild’s c hance s of ea rly integ ration into a saf

e, stable a nd perma nent home[.]
Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(g )(3) . We have c onsidered eac h of these elements a nd ag ree with the trial court that the f

acts c lear ly

and convinc ingly

establish eac h of t hem. The juvenile court found that the conditions leading to A.R.’s removal f rom Mother’s home still exis ted, alongwith other

c o n d i t i o n s t h a tw o u l d

p r o b a b l y c a u s e A

. R

. t o b e s u

b j e c tt o f u rt h e r a b u s e an d / o r n e g l e c t

. S p e c i f

i c a l l y, the trial cour

t found:

[A.R.] was injured a s a re sult of his mo t her’ s actions. I t may be due to he r impulsi vitiy ; her Bi-Polar condition; her lack of stabili ty ; her immaturity ; her lac k of an ade quate support sy stem; her inabili ty to manag e herself; her failure to improve (a s se e n in

the GA F sc or e s of 50) ; her la c k of e du c a tio n; a nd /or he r i na bil ity to p ro fi t from counse ling; but [A.R.] was injured a nd continued to be injure d in her c are

.-23-

The c ourt we n t on to list the var ious injuries suffer ed by A.R. and the other

repor ts of harm. The

c ourt de sc ri be d th e br

uis e s r e po rt e d by the da

y c are a s “ te rr ibl e br

uis e s that the mot

he r c ann ot or

wi ll

no t e xpla in. ” Whe n ann ounc ing he r ru lin g fr om the be nc h, the tr ia l jud g e state d that sh e wa s “ qu ite

c e rt a in” that if

Mo the r w a s a llo we d a

no the r t ri a l hom e vi si t wi th A. R., DC S wo uld so on have to

remove A.R. beca

use of additional problems. Unfortunately , we a g ree with the trial judg e. In case s involving the “ persistenc e of c onditions”gr ound,

DCS is not require d to pr ove that a pare nt-child relationship ca nnot be salvag ed. Nor is DCS required to show that a pa rent is “c urre nt l y h ar m fu l ” t o a child’s sa fety or future e motional stabili ty

. The question herein is the likelihood that the child can be

sa fe ly re tur ne d to the c us tod

y of the mot he r, no t w he the r t

he c hil d c an s a fe ly

re ma in in f os te r c are wi th w e e kly

vis its wi th t

he mot he r. Ou r t e rm inatio n o f p are nta l r ig hts statut e s r e c og nize a

c hil d’ s n e e d f

or a pe rm ane nt, stab le e nv ir on me nt w hic h th is mother has de monstrated she is unwilling or unable to provide

.
In r eK.A .H. , No. M1999-02079-COA- R3-CV, 2000 WL 1006959, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. J uly 21, 20 00 ). A p are nt’ s c on tin

ue d in a bil ity to p ro vide f

un dam ental c are to a

c hil d, e ve n if

no t w ill fu l, whether cause d by a mental illness, mental i mpairment, or some other c ause, c onstitut es a c ondition which pre vents the safe return of the child to the pare nt’s car e. In r eT. S. , No. M1999-01286-COAR3-CV, 2000 WL 964775, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. J uly 13, 2000). “Where , as her e, ef forts to provide help to improve the pa

renting abilities, offe red over a long pe riod of time, have proved ine ffe ctive, the conc lusion that there is littl e likelihood of such improve ment as would allow the safe return of the child to the par ent in the nea r future is justi fied.” Id.

Th e purp os e be hin d th e “ pe rs ist e nce of c on dit ion s” g ro un d f

or te rm inatin g pa

re nta l r ig hts is “to preve nt the child’s linge ring in the uncer tain status of foster c hild if a pare nt c annot within a

rea sonable time demonstrate an ability to provide a safe and caring environment for the child.” In

re D. C.C

. , No. M2007-01094-COA- R3-PT, 2008 W L588535, at *9 (Te nn. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2008). That conc ern is we ll demonstrated in this case. I n sum, w e find clea

r and c onvincing evidenc e that the c on dit ion s t hat led to A .R. ’s re mov a l, a nd oth e r c on dit ion s th a t in

a ll r e a so na

ble pr ob a bil ity would cause him to be subjected to further abuse or neg lect, still persist and preve nt the child’s safe

re tur n to Mo the r’ s c are . T he re is l itt le lik e lih oo d that the se c on dit ion s wi ll be re me die d at an e a rl y date so that A.R. ca

n be saf ely returne d to Mother in the nea r future. A.R. has thrived in his foster home, and he has an oppor tunity to timely integ rate into a stable, healthy environment. The re is no g uara ntee that Mother

will ever be able to provide a saf e envir onment for A.R., a nd the time spent waiting for this to oc cur g reatly diminis hes A.R.’s cha

nces of ear ly integ ration into a saf

e, stable a nd pe rm ane nt h ome . T hu s, DC S pr op e rl y e sta bli sh e d a g ro un d f o r te rm inatin g Mo the r’ s p are nta l r ig hts

.

C. B est I

nte re st-24-

On a pp e a l, M oth e r’ s f

ina l argume nt is th a t te rm inatin g he r p are nta l r ig hts to A .R. is n ot i n A.R.’s best intere st beca

use she “display ed appropriate behavior” at the super vised visits wit h A.R., and she ha s bonded with A.R.

“ Th e ult imate g oa l of

e ve ry pr oc e e din g inv olv ing t he care a nd c us tod y of a c hil d is to

asce rtain and promote the child’s best intere sts.” In r eMa rr , 194 S.W .3d 490, 498 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 36-1-113(i) pr ovides a list of some fa ctors to consider in determining whether

termination of par ental rig hts is in t he best intere st of the child:
(1) Whether the pare nt or g uardia n has made such an adjustment of ci rcumstanc e, conduct, or conditions a s to make it safe and in the child' s best interest to be in the home of the pa

rent or guardia

n; (2) W hether

the par ent or guardia

n has fa iled to effe ct a lasting adjustment after

rea sonable e ffor

ts by available social ser

vices a g encie s for such duration of time that lasting a djustment does not reasona bly appea r possible; (3) Whether the parent or g uardia n has maintained r eg ular visitation or other c ontact with the child; (4) Whether

a mea ningf u l relationship has otherw ise bee n established betwe en the pare nt or g uardia

n and the c hild; (5) The eff

ect a chang e of c are taker s and phy sical environment is likely to have on the child' s emotional, psy cholog ical and me dical condition; (6) Whether

the par ent or guardia

n, or other pe rson re siding wi t h t h e p are nt or g uardia n, has shown brutality , phy sical, sexual, emotional or psy cholog ical abuse , or neg lect towar d the child, or a nother c hild or adult in the family or household; (7) Whether

the phy sical environme nt of the pare nt's or g uardia n' s home is healthy

and sa fe , w he the r t

he re is c ri min a l a c tiv ity

in t he ho me , or wh e the r the re is suc h u se of a lc oh ol o r c on tr oll e d s ub sta nc e s a s ma

y re nd e r the pa

re nt o r gua

rd ian c on sis te ntl y unable to ca

re f or the c hild in a safe a

nd stable manne r; (8) Whe th e r th e p ar e n t' s o r g u ar d ia n ' s me n ta l an d

/o r e mo ti o n a l s tatu s w o u ld be detrimental to the child or preve nt the pare nt or g uardia n from ef fec tively providing safe and stable c are and super vision for the child; or (9 ) Wh e the r t

he pa re nt o r gua

rd ian h a s p a id c hil d su

pp or t c on sis te nt wi th the c hil d support g uidelines promulg ated by the depa rtment pursuant to § 36-5- 101.

We must deter

mine the child’s best int ere st from the child’s, rather than the pare nt’s, perspe ctive. In r eMa rr , 194 S.W .3d at 499.

No on e dis pu te d th a t Mo the r l ov e d A .R. and ha d bon de d with him . How e ve r, lov inga c hil d and being a g ood pare nt a re not one and the same. I n addition, “being an ef fec tive pare nt involves far more than visit ing.” In r eK.A .H. , No. M1999-02079-COA- R3-CV, 2000 WL 1006959, at *5 (T en n

. C t

. Ap p

. J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o t i n g State Dep’ t. of Chi ldren’s Serv s. v. Hunter , No. M1999- 02606-COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL313549 at *1 (Te nn. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2000))

. Severa l other fa ctors weig h in favor of

terminating Mother’s pa

renta l r ights. Mother

has not adjusted her

circ umstances-25-

to make it safe , and in A.R.’s best intere st, to be in Mother’s care

. A.R. continued to suffe r injuries while in Mother’s c ar e. De s p i te the re asonable eff orts of DCS, a lasting adjustment does not

rea sonably

appea r possible. A.R. has alre ady bonded with his foster pa rents, and te rminating M o t her’ s pare ntal rig hts would not result in a chang e of c are taker s and phy sical environme nt that would be detr imental to A.R. Ms. S tewar t testified about the sig nificant improveme nts in A.R.’s be havio r a

nd de ve lop me nt s inc e he we nt t o h is c ur re nt f os te r h ome in A

pr il of 20 07

. She sa id A .R. had pre viously

been r efe rre d for a

n evaluation at the Kiwanis Center due to conce rns about A.R.’s phy si ca l d ev el opment and spee ch. Since he had bee n with the foster pa rents, howe ver, he had g reatly expanded his vocabula

ry and lear

ned to sing his AB C’s and other song s. Various witnesse s t e s t i f i e d t h a t A

. R

. w a s p r a c t i c a l l y u n m an a g e a b l e w h e n l i v i n g w i t h M o t h e r

. F o r e xa mpl e , M s. S t e w artt e s t i f

i e d t h a t w h e n s h e v i s i t e d A

. R

. an d M o t h e r o n c e , A

. R

. t r i e d

t o “ d e s t r o y” Ms. Stewart’s cell phone, but Mother did not attempt to discipline or even corr ect him. Ms. Stewart testified that A. R.’ s b e havio r h a d im

pr ov e d w ithhis fo ste r pare nts so that he is n ow un de r c on tr ol. A.R.’s fathe r, A. R.’ s Ca se Mana g e r, CA SA, and the g ua rd ian a d li te m a ll r e c omm e nd e d th a t A .R. re ma in w ithhis fo ste r p are nts and

no t be re tur

ne d to Mo the r. We s imi larl y c on c lud e that A .R. ’s be st i nte re st w ou ld be se rv e d b y

te rm inatin g Mo the r’ s p are nta l r ig hts

.
V. C ONCL US I ON

F or the a fo re me nti on e d re a so ns , we a ff ir m the de c isi on of the juv e nil e c ourt

. Cos ts o f t his

a p p e a l ar e t a x e d

t o t h e a p p e l l an t , L

. R

. , an d

h e r s u r e t y, f o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o nm ay i s s u e i f n e c e s s a r y.

___________________________________ AL AN E. HI GH ERS , P. J. , W .S.