### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs S ep te m be r 4, 200 8
IN TH E MA TTER

OF DE RR ICK B
. Appeal f rom the Juvenile Court for Mac on Coun ty No. 07-172872 K en Witcher , Judge

No. M2008- 01162-COA-R 3-P T - F iled Dece m ber 30, 2008

Th e tr ia l c ourt

te rm inate d th e pa

re nta l r ig hts of

Ethe l B

. (“ Mo the r” ) and

Da vid B . ( “ F a the r” ) t o th e ir son, Derr ick B

. ( th e “ Ch il d ” ) , w h o w a s 1 1 a t th e ti me o f tr ia l. T h e tr ia l c o u rt f o u n d , b y c le ar a nd
c on vin c ing e vid e nc e , that se ve ra l g ro un ds fo r te rm inatin g Mo the r’ s and F a the r’ s pa re nta l rig hts
e xis t e d an d t h a t t e r m i n a t i o ni s i nt h e b e s ti n t e r e s to f t h e C h i l d

. M o t h e r

an d F a t h e r a p p e a l, challeng ing the trial court’ s finding that clear and convinc ing e vidence of g rounds to terminate w ere established at tria l. M o t h er an d Fa ther a lso challeng e the tria l court’s findingthat clea r and
c on vin c inge vid e nc e wa s p re se nte d th a t te rm inat ion of the pa re nts ’ r ig hts is i n th e Chi ld’ s b e st int e re st. We a ff

ir m. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Juvenile Court Aff irm ed; Case R em anded
C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., and A NDY D. B E NN E TT , J J ., joined.
Wil liam J . Butler , L afa

y ette, Te nnessee , for the a ppellants, Ethel B . and David B.
Robert E. Coo p er , J r., Attorney Gene ral a

nd Reporter , Michae l E. Moore, Solicitor Gene ral, a nd Preston Shipp, Assis t ant Att orney Gene ral, Ge nera l Civi l Division, Nashville, Tennessee , for the
a pp e lle e , St a te of

Te nn e sse e , D e pa

rtme nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s.

I

. The g enesis of this litigation is an ear lier petition to decla re the Child depe ndent and
ne g le c te d. Th e tr ia l c ourt g ra nte d th e De pa

rtme nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s ( “ DC S” ) i mme diate temporar y protec tive custody of t he C hild and sche duled the petition for a hear ing. I

n J uly 2006, the court conducte d a full evidentiar y hear ing on DCS’s pe tition see king to ha ve the Child adjudicated de pe nd e n t an d n e g l e c t e d

. T h e t r i a l c o u rt g r an t e d t h e p e t i t i o n
. T h e c o u rt ’ s o r d e r p r o v i d e s , in pe rt ine nt p a rt , a s f

oll ow s:-2- Upon the evide nce presente d, statements of c ounsel and the r ecor d as
a w h o le , th e Co u rt f

in d s th a t th e St a te h a s p r o v e n b y c le ar and convincingevidenc e that [the Child]

. . . is depende nt and neg lected within the meaning of the law

. . . . T h e fi nding of

depende ncy

and neg lect is based upon the following fi nd ing s o f f

a c t: [Mothe r a nd F a the r] a re un fi t to pr op e rl y

c are fo r t he c hil d, the c hil d is und e r i mpr op e r gua

rd ians hip a

nd c on tr ol a s to e nd ang e r t

he mor a ls and hea lth of the child and the c hild is suffering from abuse

. This finding is base d upon the fa ct that [Fathe r] h as on num erous oc c a sio ns c omm itt e d a

n a c t of se xua l a bu se and ra pe of a min or c hil d in h is c us tod

y on [his nie c e s]. [Fathe r] thr e a te ne d to kil l [hi s n ie c e s] if they repor ted the sexu al abuse a

nd rape . This ty

pe of c onduct place s [t he Child] at risk and the acts place the child in a situation that is a dang er to his morals an d health. [Fathe r] has phy sically abused [hi s nephewand niec es] by hitting them with his fist in t he hea d and body . [Father] has thrown knive s at [his n ep h ew] placing him at substantial risk of serous bodil y injury

. [Father] has provide d alcohol to [ his nephew a

nd t h e Child] . [Father] has provide d a contr olled substance to [his nephew]. [Father] has phy sically abused [ the Child] by hitting him with his fist and by whipping him excessively on numerous occ asions. [Father] has an al co h o l problem. . . . [Father ] has bee n violent and abusive to [Mother] . . . in t he pre sence of [the Ch il d ]. [Mot her’ s] t estimony

is not credible. The evidenc e showe d that [Mot her] is not protec tive of [t he Child] and of other children in the home. She did not tell the truth about t h e ab use [Father ] has perpe trated upon [the Child] . [Mot her] failed to be honest about what was g oing on in he r home re g ardingthe alleg ations that [Father] had rape d his nieces plac ed in his car e. [Mother] went further than fa iling to tell the tr u t h about t he abuse and she lied f or [Father ]. S he is an unbelieving pare nt and she lies to protec t [ Fat h er ]

. S he has repe atedly

chosen to prote ct her h u sband over her c hildren. . . . [Mot her] has eng ag ed in i nappropr iate conta ct with [t he Child] by tou c hin g his pr ivate pa

rt s w he n it wa s n ot n e c e ssa ry and wh e n h e did not want it . . . . [Mot her] has eng ag ed in illeg al conduc t by selling controlled substanc es fr om h er h ome. [Mother] i s curr ently on pr ob a tio n f

or se lli ngc on tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e s.-3-

Ba sed upon the for eg oing, the Child was removed f rom his pare nts’ home and placed in foster ca re. No appe al was taken fr om the order finding the Child dependent a nd neg lected.
Th e pe tit ion

to t e rm inate pa

re nta l rig hts wa s file d in Sept e mbe r 200 7. I n the pe tit ion , D CS
so ug ht t o te rm inate the pa re nta l r ig hts o f Mo th er and F a the r o n thre e dif

fe re nt g ro un ds . F ir st, purs ua nt t o T .C. A. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( g )( 2) , D CS a lle g e d th a t bo th p are nts ha d f a ile d to su

bs tanti a lly
c omp ly wi th t he s tat eme nt of r esp on si bi li ti es co nt ain ed i n t hei r per man ency pl ans , de sp ite re a so na

ble eff ort s o n t h e p ar t of DCS to assist t hem with compliance . Next, pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1- 11 3( g )( 3) , D CS alle g e d tha t: (1 ) the Chi ld h a d b e e n r e mov e d f ro m th e ho me fo r a

pe ri od of a t le a st six mo nth s b y

or de r o f t he c ourt ; ( 2) the c on dit ion s w hic h le d to the Chi ld’ s r e mov a l fr om t he ho me still exis t and other c onditions exist which in a ll likelihood would cause the Child to be subjected to f urther a buse or ne g lect; (3) it wa s unlikely that the Child could be retur ned to either

Mother or F a the r i n th e ne ar fu tur e ; (4) the re wa s li ttl e lik e lih oo d th a t th e c on dit ion s th a t pr e ve nte d th e Chi ld from beingreturne d to the custody of Mother a nd/or Father would be reme died at an e arly date; and (5) c ontinuation of the pare nt-child relationsh i p with either or both pa rents g reatly

diminis hes the Child’s chanc es of ear ly integ ration i nto a safe and stable home. The third g round for termination was ba sed on T.C.A. § 36-1-113( g )(4)

. Specifica lly , DCS a lleg ed that Father ha d committed severe
c hil d a bu se on c hil dr e n th a t ha d li ve d in his ho me and

Mo the r k

no wi ng ly fai led t o p ro te c t th e se children f rom said abuse . Finally , DCS alleg ed that it was in the Child’s best interest for the par ental rig hts of Mother and F ather to be terminate d.

I n J anuar y 2008, a trial wa s held on DCS’s petition. The first witness at trial wa s J eff rey Scott Herman, a

senior psy cholog ical examiner and lice nsed prof essional counse lor. He ha d worke d in the mental hea lth profession since 1989 a nd had worke d, for the entire period, with c hildren who
are v ic ti ms o f a

b u s e o r n e g le c t. H e r

ma n h a d r e c e iv e d tr a in in g f

r o m th e Se x O f

f e n d e r Trea tment Boa rd as we ll as training for e valuating sex offender s and dete rm i n i n g wh et h er a g iven offe nder posed a c ontinuing risk. The trial court acc ep ted Her man as a n expert witness after

counsel for Mother and F ather

had an oppor

tunity to voir dire him as to his qualifications.

Her man conduct ed a psycholog ical eva luation on Fathe r, which inc luded a se x offe nder assessment. The psy chosexual examination reveale d that Father wa s attempting to m inimiz e or e ven conce al intere st and information on the sex-related items. Herma n acknow ledg ed that, abse nt an admission, ther e is no way a psy chosexual assessment could de finitively asce rtain if an individual is a sex offender . Howeve r, in the field of psy ch o s ex u al ana ly sis, a poly g raph e x amination is an
a c c e pte d to ol t o u se in a n a sse ssm e nt. He rm an a dd e d th a t it was an accep te d p ra c tic e in h is pr of e ssi on to r e ly up on the re su lts of a po lyg ra

ph e xami natio n wh e n e va luatin g and tr e a tin g patie nts

. He rm an s ta te d th a t th e ps y c ho se xua l a sse ssm e nt o n F a the r w a s i n c on c lus ive du e to h is d e fe ns ive ne ss on the sex-relate d qu es t i o n s
. T h e test also re veale d that Father wa s in “sever e psy cholog ical dis tr e ss. ” He a lso wa s d ia g no se d a s b e inga lc oh ol d e pe nd e nt. Ac c or din g to H e rman, a lc oh ol u se is associated w it h i n cr ea s ed risk for domestic violence as we ll as phy sical and/or se x ual abuse of children. The test reve aled that F ather had seve ral mistaken idea s of what is normally acc epted a s rig h t a n d w r o n g r e g ar d in gs e xu a l b e h a v io r s
. B a s e d o nth e s e r e s u lt s , H e r

ma nqu e s ti o n e d

Fa ther-4-

further and F ather

chang ed his answe rs, indicating either that he was lyi n g or that he did not understand the questions the first time.

Her man’s fina l conclusion was that F ather had a c og nitive distortion of the effe cts of sexual
ac t s wi t h ch i l dre n
. Ac co rd i n g t o He rm an , “s o m e o f t h e i t em s [ Fa t h er ] h aden d o rs ed

. . . ar e t h i n gs that are commonly

used by sex offender s as rationaliz ations fo r s ex o ff enses, and that conce rned
me .” He rm an te sti fi e d a s f oll ow s: Q. Given thi s Court’s finding that [Father] sexually abused a nd rape d his nieces, repeatedly , is sex offe nder tre atment, in y our opinion,
ne c e ssa ry a nd su c c e ss ful co mpl e tio n o f i t [ne c e ssa ry ] in o rd e r t o pr ote c t c hil dr e n w ho wo uld be in h is c are a

nd c on tr ol?
A. Yes

. . . . [A n d o n g o in g p o ly g r a p h e xa mi n a ti o n s w o u ld be
nece ssary ] t o make sure the per son is comply ing w ith a safe ty p l an.
Her man then adde d that sex offender s who do not complete a residential tre atment prog ram a re at a much hig her r isk of rec idivism and, wi t hout completion of treatment, no child is safe in a se x offe nder’ s car e.
Her man also eva luated Mother. H erma n stated that Mother r ece ived a very low score on the compre hension sub-sca le on one of the tests, and that sub-sc ale:
basica lly measure s a per son’s compre hensi o n o f what’s g oing on
aro un d the m, an d tha t wa s low , an d if a p e rs on is r e sid ingin a

ho us e with a per son that has bee n found to be a sex offender , Iwould be
v ery co n ce rn edab o u t ar e th ey aw ar e of ev ery t h i n g t h at i s h ap p en i n g, are they adequately

awa re of the risk fa ctors. So, y es, that would be a risk fa ctor in this case

. Q. I n y our opini on would that be a r isk factor that would preve nt [Mot her] from prote cting her son . . . f rom sexual abuse by

[Father] if [the Chi ld] was ba ck in the home?
A. Yes

. Th e e arl ie r or de r by the Juve nil e Court re c ite d a fi nd ingthat F a the r h a d p ro vid e d a lc oh ol t o the Chi ld a

nd ha d h it h im. Ac c or din g to H e rm an, thi s ty pe of be havio r i s li ke ly

to c a us e psy cholog ical dama g e to the Child. Herman a dded:

[A] buse incre ases the r isk of post-traumatic stre ss d i s o rder. I t’s d em o n strated in impaire d social func tioning. . . . [Abuse] increase s-5- the risk of de linquency

and it woul d al s o incre ase the risk of de pr e ssi on . We kn owsc ho ol f un c tio nin g a lso dr op s. Q. A s to [th e Ch il d ], if

h e w a s in

th e s a me h o u s e h o ld , w a s in the
e nv ir on me nt w he re his c ou sin s ar e be ing ph y sic a lly a bu se d, se xua lly
a bu se d .

. . is t

he e xpos ur e to a ll o f t

his a bu se lik e ly

to r e su lt o r c a

us e [ p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s ?]
A. They are the s ame risk fac tors

. . . . The re sear ch has shown that children w ho witness domestic violence suffe r the same neg at ive ps y c ho log ic a l and

soci al outc ome s a s c hil dr e n th a t are ph y sic a lly
a b u s e d d i r e c t l y.
He rm an th e n s ta te d th a t ha vin g on e pa

re nt w ho fa ils to p ro te c t th e c hil d f ro m th e oth e r p are nt a lso contributes to the psy cholog ical impact of the abuse. “[L ]ogica lly , the child fe els aba ndoned whe n they ’re not protecte d by

another pare nt in the home.”

Her man also eva luated the Child. The Child explained to Herma n a time when, w hile in the
car e of Mother and Father, the Child told his pa rents that he wa s being threatened by someone a

nd Father g ave him a sw itchblade to put under his pillow at night. Her

man explained that he had two
conce rns about this situation:

One, I ’m conce rned about the impact of a child –I ’m conce rned about sending a child the messag e of w e ca n’t protec t y ou, y ou have to pr otect y ourself, from what he perc eives is a l i fe -t hreatening situation. Rega

rdless of whe ther that’s acc urate or not, that’s the way the child per ceive d it. Secondly , we know that children c opy be havio rs the y

se e
. . . , so we ’v e g ot a c hil d that’ s h a d a ll the se behavior s modeled and the n we’ re g iving him a we apon? I ’m not saying the child would definitely copy the behaviors [he has] seen but there definitely

is a risk there of.

He rm an te sti fi e d to the imp or tanc e of sta bil ity in a c hil d’ s li fe . Wh e n a sk e d wh at impa c t w ou ld
occur on the Child’s mental health if perma nency was delay ed and he did not know if he wa s g oing to return home or

continue in foster

car e, He rman c oncluded that this would result in “[i] ncre ased anxiety and impaire d social deve lopment.”
A lot o f He rm an ’s testimony was ba sed upon his repor ts created af

ter e valuating Father, Mo the r, and

the Chi ld. He rm an’ s r e po rt on F a the r c on ta ins the fo llo wi ng :-6- REVIEW OF RECORD S
A re port of a polyg raph e x amination conducte d on [Father] . . . on J une 7th 2006 was p ro v i d ed to the examiner . . . . The r eport ind ic a te s th a t he wa s ask e d re le va nt que sti on s a

bo ut c on ta c t w ithhis nie c e s’ va g ina [s]. T he c on c lus ion of the e va luatio n w a s “ it i s there fore my

profe ssional opinion that [Father] was not truthful/lied when he answe red the rele vant questions as listed above.” (Capitalization and bold print in original.) During direc t-examination of Herma n, counsel for

Father objec ted to any

information being admitted at trial conc erningFather not passing the poly g raph examination. Father’s counsel soug ht to have the quote d excerpt and a ny mention of the fa iled poly g raph e x amination remove d from Her man’s re port. Following extensive arguments by counsel, the tria l court denie d the motion,
s t at i n g:
The Court is g oing to deny [Father’ s] m otion to st rike that pa rag raph. As [counsel for DCS] stated, the pre vious order doe s ref lect that the Court has made the finding of abuse alre ady so that partic u l ar issue that’s addr essed in thi s para g raph about whether he sexually

abused [hi s niece s] has already

been decide d by the Court and so Ican’ t see any harm in that st at em ent being– any harm to [Father ] i n that statement beingin this repor t. And I do also believe the fa ct that the te sti mony of thi s w itn e ss h a s b e e n th a t polyg ra phte sts are ro uti ne ly used and a cce pted as part of the t reatment, that, ag ain, I think weig hs ag ainst [Father’ s] m otion to st rike. So the motion is denied.
The ne x t witness was Clay Fa rris, a clinical ca se worke r employ ed by Hea lth Connect Americ a. He alth Connect Amer ica f urnishes contra ct work for DCS

. Fa rris has rece ived spec ialized t ra i n i n g wi t h re s p ec tt o t re at i n g s ex o ff en d er s
. Fa rr i s t re at edFa t h er fr o m M ar ch 1 4 , 2 0 0 7 , t h ro u gh May 30, 2007. Fa

rris “r estarte d” tre ating Father a g ain a fewday s prior to trial. Fa rris stated that during Father’s treatment, he sometimes ha d problems with F ather being able to r etain what they had
wo r k e d o n i n t h e p r e v i o u s s e s s i o n
. B e c a u s e o f F a t h e r ’ s c o mp l a i n t s o f b e i n g “ b u l l i e d ” a t t h e fi rs t poly g raph e x amination, Fa rris ar rang ed for a s econd poly g raph e x amination. The re sults of the second polyg raph e x amination wer e the same as the first and showe d dece ption. Far ris discontinued treatment beca

use F ather

continued to deny

that he had sexually

abused his niec es. Howe ver, on one occa sion, Fathe r admitted doing “what he ca lled a ‘titty twister’ on one of his niece s.”
On cr oss-examination, Farr is was questioned a bout his notes of Apr il 12 where in he aske d Father if he was thinking about the mater ials that had bee n furnished to him. Fa rris ac knowledg ed that his notes state that he:-7- sp ok e wi th c lie nt a

bo ut t he ma te ri a ls p re se nte d th us far, in quir e d if
c lie nt e ng a g e d in

tho ug ht a

bo ut thes e mat e ri a ls w he n n ot w ithc a se manag er. Cli ent denies thinking about the m ater ial on his own time. Client goe s on to state t hat t his is BS t o have to g o throug h with when y ou’re innocent of a

ny wrong doing. H e states that the Pat h fi nders and ang er ma

nag ement cla sses wer e a waste of time a nd g overnme nt m o n e y.
Kim Matthews was c alled as the nex t witness. She is employ ed by DCS as a family

service worke r an d w a s a s s ig n e d to th e Ch il d ’ s c a s e w h e n h e c a me in to th e c u s to dy o f D CS

. Matthews develope d the perma

nency plans for both pa rents. She testified that both pa rents s i gn ed t he perma nency plans as we ll as the criter ia for te rmination of par ental ri g hts. She stated that neither pare nt made ade quate pr og ress or c hang e such that the Child could be retur ned to their c are
. M a t t h e w s t e s t i f

i e d t h a tt h e r e qu i r e m e n t s i nt h e p e r m an e n c y p l an s w e r e r e a s o n a b l e an d n e c e s s a r y. As pe rt ine nt t o th is a

pp e a l, s he te sti fi e d a s f

oll ow s: Q. For [Mot her] , y o u ’v e stated in the pe tition for termination of pa re nta l ri g hts that the re qu ir e me nts in the pe rm ane nc y pla n s he did
no t c o mp le te w e r e p r o te c ti n g th e c h il dr e nf r o m s e xu a l a

b u s e, attending counseling that addre ssed protec ting the child from sexual
a bu se and th e ha

rm c a us e d b y the se xua l a

bu se , a nd ve rb a lly expressing he r under standi n g of the tra uma ca used by the sexual abuse a nd the nee d to protect he r child fr om the sexual a buse. I s that still corr ect, that’s the portion of the per manenc y plan that she ha s not complied with?
A. Ye s. Q. A n d in a ll f

a ir n e s s , s h e h a s c o mp li e d w it h a n u mb e r of other
re qu ir e me nts in t

he pla n, su c h as the A an d D tre a tme nt an d g oin g to counseling for a

ng er ma nag ement and othe r issues, hasn’t she ?
A. Ye s. Q. Given the rea sons for re moval, what is the most important thing
as fa r as [ M o t h er ] i s co n ce rn ed t h at s h e d o an d d em o n s t ra t e ach an ge in order to make it safe f

or [the Chil d] t o return home ? A. Well, to protec t he r child fr om sex ual abuse . That wa s an issue. Q. Ag ain, with [Father] . . . y o u p u t i n the petition he’s not do ne
. . . the ps y c ho se xua l r e su lts we re inc on c lus ive du e to h isM at t hew s was ques t i oned ex t ens i vel y as t o t he r eas onabl e e f f ort s s he mad e on bo t h pare nt s ’ beha l f

. W het her 1 M a tthe w s a n d /o r D C S m a d e a re a so n a b le e ff o rt o n the p a re n ts’ b e h a lf is n o t a n issu e o n a p p e a l so w e h a v e o m itt e d this t es t i mo ny
. H avi ng s ai d t hat , we woul d po i nt out t hat t he r ecor d af f i r mat i vel y r ef

l ect s t hat r eas onabl e e f

f ort s wer e made.
-8- defe n s iveness and he ’s fa iled to complete tre atment for the sex of fe ns e s. I s th a t st ill c or

re c t?
A. Yes. . . . Q. [Father] has complete d A and D tr eatment throug h Pathfinders and g one to ang er ma

nag ement and c ounseling at – A. Valley

Ridge

. Q. – Valley

Ridge . What is the most important thing, thoug h, in the pe rm [an e nc y ] pla

ns fo r h im t o s uc c e ssf

ull y c omp le te in o rd e r t o safe g uard [the Child] if he we re r eturne d to the home?
A. Th e se x off

e nd e r c la sse s. 1

* * * Q. I n y o u r opi nion do the conditions stil l exi st that caused [the Child] to be re moved from the home of [Mo t h er an d Father], or do oth e r c on dit ion s e xist w hic h w ou ld in a ll pr ob a bil ity c a us e the c hil d to b e su bje c t to fu

rt he r ab us e or ne g le c t makin g it unli ke ly he c ou ld be re turned to them in the nea r future ?
A. Yes. . . . Q. I n y our opinion is their [si c] little likelihood that these conditions
wo uld be re me die d at an e arl y date so the c hil d co uld be re tur ne d to [Mot her or

Father] in the near

future?
A. Ye s. Q. I n y our o pin ion

is t he c onti nu a tio n o f t

he pa re nt/ c hil d
re la tio nshi p, do e s it

g re a tly dim ini sh[the Chi ld’ s] c ha nc e of e arl y integ ration into a stable a nd perma nent home . . . ?
A. Ye s. Q. Do [Mother and F ather ] continue to reside tog ether ?-9- A. Ye s. Q. Has [Mot her] demonstrated or been able to vocalize to y ou any chang e that would demonstrate that she would prote ct her child from sexual abuse?
A. No. Q. Ha s s h e b ee nab l e t o v o ca l i z e o r d em o n s t ra t e t o y o uan y ch an ge to show that she w o u l d n o longe r touch he r son’s g enitals or bu tto c ks ?
A. No. . . . Q. I n y our opinion have [Mot her or Father] ma de an a djustment of circ umstances, c onduct or c ondition as to make it safe a nd in the
c hil d’ s b e st i nte re st t o b e in t he ho me of

the pa re nts ?
A. No. Q. I n y our opinion have [Mother or F ather ] failed to effe ct a lasting adjustment after

rea s o n ab le ef

forts by available social ag encie s for such a dur ation of t i m e t hat lasting adjustment does not appea r rea sonably

possible?
A. Yes.
Matthews also testified that the Child’s old er b ro t h er had bee n remove d from Mother a nd Father’s home in West Virginia whe n the Child was a few months old. The older child was re moved based on phy sical abuse at t h e h ands of Father . Mother’s pa renta l rig hts to thi s child were terminated y ear s ag o by

the State of West Virg inia. Father was not the biologica l f ather of this older child.

For

the sake of bre vity , we wi l l n o t s u m marize the testimony of the Child’s former

and
curr ent foster

pare nts. Suffice it to say , howeve r, th at t he re cord r efle cts that the Child has been place d in g ood foster homes and is doing well. The curr ent foster pare nts, w ho have four c hildren of their own, intend to a dopt the Child i f he is made available for a doption.
Mother testified that she has taken car e of the Child since his birth and that there is no reason why she could not continue to c are for him. Mother is on social secur ity disability and rec eives $956
a m o n t h

. Father a lso rece ives social sec urity disability

benef its. Mother and F ather

rent a two bedroom tra iler. The Child has hi s own bedroom. When asked why she stay ed with Father, Mother stated it wa s beca

use she knew he did not do any thing wrong
. The Child has to l d M o t h er t h at heW e a r e omi t t i n g s ev er al of t h e n u mber ed pa r ag r aph s f r om t h e t r i al cou r t ’ s orde r wh i ch ha v e n o be ar i n g on 2 this a p p e a l.
-10- wants to come home . Mother testified that she knows it is wrong for an adult to have any kind of sexual contact with a child. Mother acknow ledg ed that she is on probation and state d that she has
no t vi olate d h e r p ro batio n. F athe r c ho se no t to te sti fy a t tr ia l. Following the trial, the trial court enter ed a de tailed orde r terminatingthe par ental rig hts of Mother and F ather . Acc ording to the trial court : 2
The Court finds that the State of T ennesse e, De part me nt of Children’s Service s has made rea sonable efforts to assist [Mot her and Father] in: (1) visiting the child; (2) esta blishing a suitable home for the c hild; (3) c omply ing w ith the require ments in the perma nency plans; and (4)
reme dy ing the conditions that nece ssitate foster c are
. T h e Court finds that the State of Tenne ssee, De partment of Children’ s Service s has prove n by

clear an d convincingevidenc e g rounds for termination of par ental rig hts based upon the f ollowing f

indings of fa c t. [The Chil d] was placed in the c ustody of the Te nnessee Depa

rtment of C hildren’s S ervic es due to depende ncy and neg lect on Mar ch 23, 2006. [The Child] has rema ined continuously in foster c are since Mar ch 23, 2006. [Mot her] has not subs tantially complied with the provisions of the perma nency plans and the re fo re her par ental rig hts are te rminated pursuant to Tenn. Code A nn. § 36-1-113( g )(2)

. The pe rmane ncy

plans re q u i re her to protec t the [C hild] . She continues to reside with [ Father]. She continues t o believe [Father] and to protec t him and not the child. She is entitled to do so, but as l o n g as s h e does, she is not in subs tantial compliance with the pe rm ane nc y

pla ns
. The re quirements in the per manenc y plans are all rea sonably

related to rem edying the conditions that nece ssitate foster c are . The require ment to pr otect her child from sexual a buse is o f p rimary importance

.-11- Th e De pa

rtme nt m a de re a so na

ble e ff ort s to a ssi st [M oth e r] i n comply ing w ith the re q u irements in the per manenc y plan by providing g as ca

rds for transportation t o appointments, setting up a nd payin g for a

psy cholog ical eva luation, setting up a nd paying f

or a pare nting a ssessment, setting up a nd paying f

or thera peutic visitation, set ti ng u p an A &D ass ess men t, set ti ng up andpay in g for A&D treatment, providing random drug scre ens, setting up and pay ing f or hair follicle dr

ug scre ens and me ntal health counse ling. [Mothe r] w a s a dv ise d on Ma rc h 28 , 20 06 , Janu ary

18 , 2 00 7 a

nd July 5, 2 007 that failure to substantially comply with the perma

nency plans was gr ounds for termination of parental rig hts. [ Mother] signed the ac knowledg ment of re ceipt of the Criteria a nd Procedur e for Termination of Par ental Rig hts on March 28, 2006, J anuar y 18, 2007 and Jul y 5, 2007. [Father] has not s u bstantially complied with the provisions of the perma nency plan and ther efor e his pare ntal rig hts are te rminated pursuant to T.C.A. 36-1-113( g )(2)

. The pe rm anenc y

plans requir e him to complete sex offende r treatment. The Court has made f indings that [Fathe r] sex ually abused and ra ped his niece s. The Court finds that he is in need of tre atment as a se x o ff

en der. [Father] does not have to a dmit to t hese se x of fe ns e s, bu t to su c c e ssf

ull y c omp le te se x off

e nd e r t re atme nt h e mus t either a dmit to t he off

ense or pass a poly g raph e x amination. The Court he ard c re dib le e xpe rt

te sti mony

fr om S c ott

He rm an, wh o is a se ni o r p s y c h o l o g i c a l e xam i n e r , t h ats e x o f f e n d e r t h e r a p i s t [s ] r e ly he a vil y on po ly graph e xami natio ns . T he us e is a c c e pte d in the ir profe ssion. They

place more re liance on the poly g raph e valuation than on the cour

t’s finding s.
The re quirements in t he per manenc y plans are all rea sonably

related to remedy

ing the condit i ons that nece ssitate foster c are . The
re qu ir e me nt t o c omple te a ps y c ho se xua l e va luatio n a nd fo llo w a ll
rec ommendations was par ticularly important in reducingthe risk of ha rm to the c hil d so tha t the c hil d c ou ld h a ve be e n s a fe ly re tur ne d to the par ent’s ca

re.
Even though both pa

rents completed a number of tasks on t he perma nency plans, they

did not complete the most important task.-12- Th e De pa

rtme nt m a de re a so na

ble e ff ort s to a ssi st [F athe r] i n comply ing w ith the re q u irements in the per manenc y plan by pr ov idi nga

po lyg ra ph , g a s c ard s fo r tr ans po rt a tio n to a pp oin tme nts , setting up a

nd paying f

or a psycholog ical eva luation, setting up a nd paying f or a pa renting asses sment, setting up a nd paying f

or thera peutic visitation, setting up an A& D assessment, setting up and paying f or A& D treatment, providing r andom drugscre ens, s etting up
an d p ay i n g fo r h ai r f

o l l i cl e d ru g s cr ee n s , m en t al h ea l t h co u n s el i n g, sett i n g up a psy chosexual evaluation on two occasions and a ng er m an age m en tco u n s el i n g. [F a the r] w a s a dv ise d o n M arc h 2 8, 20 06 , J anu ary 18 , 2 00 7 a

nd July 5, 2007 that failure to substantially comply wi t h the per

manenc y plans was g rounds for te rmination of par ental rig hts. [ Father] signe d the ac knowledg ment of re ceipt of the Criteria a nd Procedur e for Termination of Par ental R ights on March 28, 2006, January 18, 2007 and Jul y 5, 2007.
The Chi ld has been remove d from the custody of t he parents for mor e than six (6) months; the conditions which led to t h e re m o v al of the child from the home of

[Mot her a

nd Father] stil l exi st and other conditions ex ist which in all probability would cause the child to be sub j ect to fur

ther a buse and/or ne g lect, makingit unlikely that the child could be r eturne d to [ Mother or F ather ] i n the nea r future ; there is l itt le lik e lih oo d th a t th e se c on dit ions wil l be re me die d at a n e arl y date so that the child can be returne d to [ Mother or F ather ] i n the nea r futur e ; th e c on tin

uatio n o f t

he pa re nt o r g uard ian an d c hil d
re la tio ns hip g re a tly

dim ini sh e s th e c hil d’s chance s o f a n e arl y int e g ratio n in to a

sta ble and pe rm ane nt h ome and

the re fo re the ir pare ntal rig hts are te rminated pursuan t t o T enn. Code Ann. § 36- 1- 113(g )(3)

. The conditions that le d to the remova l of the child from the home of [Mot her a nd Father] are that [Father] sexually abused his niec es . . . wh o w e re res idi ngwi th h im at th e tim e ; [F a the r] thr e a te ne d to kil l the se g ir ls i f t

he y re po rt e d th e se xua l a

bu se ; [F a the r] p hy sic a lly abused [his nieces a

nd nephew ] by

hitting them wi t h his fist in t he he a d an d b o dy ; [ F a th e r ] th r e w k n iv e s a t [ h is n e p h e w ]; [F a th e r] provided a lcohol to [ his nephew a nd the Child] ; [ Father] provided a controlled substance to [his nephew], [Father ] phy sically abused [the C h i l d ] b y h i t t i n g h i m w i t h h i s f i s tan d w h i p p i n g h i m e x c e s s i v e l y; [Father] had a

n alcohol and substanc e a b u s e problem; [ Father] was violent and abusive towards his wife in the child’s prese nce .
. . andExh i bi t 4 i s a n “ Adj u di ca t or y a n d D i s pos i t i on al H ea r i n g O r der ” en t ered b y the t r i al c ou r t i n Au g u s t 2006. 3 T hi s o rder was dis cuss ed at the b egi nni ng of t hi s o p i ni o n and i s t he o rder i ni t i al l y f i nd i ng t he C hi l d t o be de p end ent and
n eg l ec t ed.
-13-

[Mot her] failed to prote ct the childre n in her home f rom the abuse by [F a the r]; [Mothe r] l ie d f or [F a the r]; [Mothe r] e ng a g e d in inappropriate contac t with [ the Child] by touching his g enitals and bu tto c k to a ssi st h im u sin g the bathr oo m and bathi ng , d e sp ite his being able to complete these task[s] without assistance, [Mother] fa ile d to g ive he r c hil d me dic a tio n a s p re sc ri be d; [Mothe r] s old controlled substanc es; all of which e ndang ere d the moral, he alth and p h y s ic a l w e ll

- b e in g o f

[th e Ch il d ].
Th e c on dit ion s tha t pre ve nt the c hil d’ s re tur n to the pa

re nt[s ’] h ome are that [Father] is an untreated sex off ender and [Mot her] continues to be non[-] protec tive.
Th e De pa

rtme nt m a de re a so na

ble e ff or ts t o a ssi st the pa

rents in
re m ed y i n g t h e c o n d i t i o n s t h at n ec es s i t at e f o s t er ca re b y p ro v i d i n g a poly g raph, g as car d for transportation to appointments, setting up a nd paying f or a psychologi cal e valuation, setting up and pay ing f or a pare nting a ssessment, setting up a nd paying f

or thera peutic visitation, setting up a

nd paying f

or A& D treatment, providing r andom drug
scre en s , s e tt in g u

p an d p ay in g f o r h a ir f o ll ic le dr u g s c r e e n s , me ntal health c o u n seling , setting up a nd paying f

or a psychosexual
ev al u at i o no nt wo o cc as i o n s an d an ger m an age m en tco u n s el i n g. [Mot her a nd Father] have c ommitt ed severe child abuse as define d by Tenn. Co de Ann. § 37- 1-102(b) (21) a g ainst [t wo niece s and a
ne ph e w], wh o a

re c hil dr e n w ho re sid e d te mpo rar ily or pe rm ane ntl y in t he ho me of

[Mothe r a

nd F a the r], and

the re fo re the ir

pa re nta l r ig hts
are terminated pur suant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(g )(4)

. Ex hibit 4 contains an un- appeal ed fi nding that [ Father] committed

3
numerous ac ts of rape ag ainst [hi s two niece s]. Thi s meets the criter ia for se vere child abuse f ound at Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 37-1- 102(b)( 21)(C). Ex hibit 4 also contains a finding that [Father] threw knives at his nephew

. This a ct was likely to cause sever e bodily

harm or death and meets the c riteria f or seve re c hild abuse found at Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1- 102(b)( 21)(A)

. Ex hibit 4 also contains findings that [Father] hit [hi s niece s and
ne p h e w ] i nt h e h e a d

an d b o dy
. H e e xp o s e d

t h e m t o d o m e s t ic-14- violence. He gave drug s and alcohol to [hi s nephew ]. I n the opinion of a qua lified expert, Scott Herman, the se ac ts and the environme nt the children wer e exposed to was rea sonably expected t o p ro duce
sever al o f t h e d isorders se t out in Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1- 10 2( b) (2 1) (B ), inc lud ing se ve re ly imp a ir ingthe c hil dr e n’ s a bil ity to fu nc tio n a de qu a te ly

in t he ir e nv ir on me nts

. Mo the r k no wi ng ly fa ile d to pr ote c t th e c hi ld ren f ro m se ve re c hil d abuse. She knowing ly failed to pr otect [her niec es] from rape . She lied and attempted to pr otect [Fa ther] from cha rg es of r ape. She knowing ly

failed to p ro t ec t [ the Child and her niec es and ne phew] from [Fathe r] hitt ing the m in the head a nd b o d y wi th his fist. S he kn o w in g ly f

a il e d to p r o te c t th e c h il dr e n f r o m an e n v ir o n me n t tha t pursuant to qualified e x pert testimony could be rea sonably expected to cause the childre n sever e disorders set out in Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-102( b)(21) (B ). (F ootnote added; pa

rag raph numbe ring in orig inal omitted.)
After deter mining that these finding s demonstrated, c lear ly and convincing ly , that g rounds fo r te rm inatio n of Mothe r’ s and F a the r’ s par e nta l rig hts e xist, the tr ia l c ourt un de rt oo k a

be st i nte re st analy sis. After r eviewingthe per tinent statutory

fac tors set forth in T.C.A. § 36-1-113( i), the trial
c ourt de te rm ine d th a t it

ha d been pr ov e n, c le arl y

and c on vin c ing ly , th a t it

wa s in the Chi ld’ s b e st interest for

Mother’s a

nd Father’s pa

renta l rig hts to be terminated.

II.
Mother and Father appea l the trial court’s final judgme nt. T hey both claim that the trial cour t e rr e d w he n it

fo un d c le ar a

nd c on vin c inge vid e nc e that: ( 1) g ro un ds to t e rm inate the ir pa re nta l r ig hts had bee n established; and ( 2) it was in the Child’s best intere s t for the pa rents’ r ights to be terminated. A s a re lated issue, Mother a nd Father c laim that the trial court plac ed excessive r eliance upon Father having f

ailed two polyg raph e x aminations.

III

. I n c a se s in vo lvi ngthe te rm inatio n o f p are nta l r ig hts , o ur du ty on fa c tua l matte rs is t o “de te r mi n e w h e th e r th e tr ia l c o u rt’ s f in d in g s , ma d e u n d e r a c le ar an d c o n v in c in g s ta n d ar d , are supported by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e.” In r eF.R .R. , I II , 193 S.W .3d 528 , 5 3 0 (T en n. 2006). The tr ial co u rt ’s fi n d i n g s of fa ct ar e re viewed de novo u p o nt h e r e c o r d

a c c o mp an i e d

b y a presumption of cor

rec tness unless the prep ondera nce of the evidenc e is otherwise

. Id .; T e nn . R. App. P. 13(d). Que stions of law are revie wed d e n o vo wi th n o p re su mpt ion of c or re c tne ss. Langschm idt v. Langschm idt , 81 S.W .3d 741, 744-45 (Te nn. 2002).-15-

Tr ia l c ourt s, un lik e a

pp e llate c ourt s, are a

ble to ob se rv e wi tne sse s a s th e y te sti fy and to a sse ss their deme anor. Thus, trial courts are in a unique position to evaluate witness cre dibilit y
. See Sta te v . P rue tt , 788 S.W .2d 559, 561 (Tenn. 1990) . Acc ording ly , appellate courts will not re-e valuate a t r i a l c o u rt ’ s a s s e s s m e n to f w i t n e s s c r e d i b i l i t y a

b s e n tc l e ar

an d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t o t h e c o n t r a r y. See We ll s v. Tennes se eBd. of

Re ge nts , 9 S.W .3d 779, 783 (Tenn. 1999) , Humphre y v . D av id With erspoon, Inc. , 734 S.W .2d 315, 315-16 (Te nn. 1987).
Parents have a funda

mental rig ht to the car e, custody , and contr ol of their childre n. Stan ley
v . I lli noi s , 4 05 U. S. 6 45 , 9 2 S. Ct. 12 08 , 3 1 L .E d. 2d 55 1 ( 19 72 ); O’Daniel v. Me ssier , 905 S.W .2d 182, 186 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) rev’d on other grounds , In re Sw anson , 2 S.W .3d 180 (Tenn. 1999) ; I n r e Drinnon , 7 7 6 S

. W .2d 96, 97 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). T his right “ is among the oldest of the jud ic ia lly re c og nize d li be rt

y int e re sts pr ote c te d by the Du e Pr oc e ss C la us e s o f t he fe de ra l and

state constitutions.” In r eM. J. B. , 140 S.W .3d 643, 652-5 3 (T enn. C t. App. 2004). “Te rmination of a person’ s rig hts as a par ent is a g rave and fina l decision, irre vocably alteringthe lives of the pa rent and child involved and ‘seve ring fore ver all leg al rig hts and obligations’ of the par ent.” Means v. Ashby , 130 S.W .3d 48, 54 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003)( quoting T

. C.A. § 36-1-113(l) (l)). “ Fe w c o n s e qu e n c e s o f ju d ic ia l a c ti o n ar e s o g r a v e a s th e s e v e r an c e o f n a tu r a l f a mi ly ties.” M
. L
. B . v. S.L.J. , 5 1 9 U. S

. 1 0 2 , 1 1 9 , 1 1 7 S

. C t

. 5 5 5 , 1 3 6 L

. E d

. 2 d 4 7 3 (1 9 9 6 ) ( qu o t i n g Sant osky v. Kram er , 455 U.S. 745, 787, 102 S.C t. 1388, 71 L .Ed.2d 599 (1982))

. Whil e par ental rig hts are supe rior to the cla ims of oth er p ersons a nd the g overnme nt, they
are not absol u t e, an d t h ey may be ter minated upon appr opriate statutory g rounds. See Blair v. Badenhope , 77 S.W .3d 137, 141 (Tenn. 2002) . Due pr ocess requires clear and convinc ing e vidence of the e x istence of the grounds for termination of the pa rent-c hild relationship. In re Drinn on , 776 S.W .2d at 97. T.C.A. § 36-1-113 (Supp. 2008) gover ns termination of parental rights i n this state. A par ent’s rig hts may

be ter minated only

upon “(1) [a] finding by the court by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that the g rounds for te rmination of par ental or guardia nship rights have bee n established; and (2) [t ]hat termination of the pare nt’s or g uardia n’s rig hts is in t he best intere st[ ] of the child.” T. C.A . § 36 -1 -1 13 (c ); In r eF.R .R. , I II , 193 S.W

. 3 d at 5 3 0

. Both of these ele ments must be established by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e. See T. C.A . § 36-1- 11 3(c)(1 ); In r eV ale ntine , 79 S.W .3d 539, 546 (Tenn. 2002). The exis tence of at least one statutory basis for termi n at i o n of pare ntal rig hts will support t he trial c ourt’s dec isi o n t o t er m i n ate those rights. In r eC.W .W
. , 37 S.W .3d 467, 473 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), abrogated on other grounds, In r eAudre y S. , 182 S.W .3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).
The he ighte ned burde n of proof in pare ntal termination ca ses minimiz es the risk of e rrone ous decisions. In r eC.W

.W
. , 3 7 S. W.3 d at 47 4; In re M. W. A., J r. , 9 80 S.W. 2d

62 0, 62 2 ( Te nn . Ct

. Ap p. 19 98 ). Ev ide nc e satis fy ingthe c le ar a

nd c on v i n c i n g

e v ide nc e sta

nd ard e sta bli sh e s th a t th e tr

uth of the fa cts asser

ted is highly

probable , Sta te

v . D e marr , N o
. M 2 0 0 2

- 0 2 6 0 3

- CO A

- R3

- JV , 2 0 0 3 WL 21946726, at *9 (Te nn. Ct. App. M.S., fil ed August 13, 2003), and eliminat es any serious or substantial doubt about the corr ectne ss of the conclusions draw n from the evidenc e. In re V ale ntine , 79 S.W. 3d

a t 54 6; In r eS.M

. , 1 49 S.W. 3d

63 2, 63 9 ( Te nn . Ct . App . 2 00 4) ; In r eJ. J. C. , 148 S.W .3d 919, 925 (Te n n
. Ct. App. 2004). I t produce s in a fac t-finder ’s mind a firm belief or convic tion-16-

reg ardingthe truth of the f acts soug ht to be established. In re A.D .A. , 84 S.W .3d 592, 596 (Tenn. Ct. Ap p. 20 02 ); Ray v. Ray , 8 3 S. W.3 d 726 , 7 33 (T e nn . Ct . App . 2 00 1) ; In r eC.W .W
. , 37 S.W .3d at 474.

I V.

B e fo re we a dd

re ss wh e the r g ro un ds to te rm inate pa re nta l ri g hts ha d be e n e sta

bli sh e d, we wi ll d is c u s s th e tr ia l c o u rt’ s u s e o f an d r e li an c e u

p o nF ather ’s f

a il e d p o ly g r a p h e xa mi n a ti o n s
. We addre ssed this same issue in In r e P .J.G. , No. E2006-02003- COA-R3-PT, 2007 WL 1237789 (Tenn. Ct. App. E.S., filed April 27, 2007), perm. app. de nied August 6, 2007 . I n that case we state d:

Father’s f inal evidentiar

y issue is his claim that the repor t should have been e x cluded be cause it relied, in part, on a poly g raph e x amination that was inadmiss ible. Father re lies on State v. Pierce , 138 S.W .3d 820 (Tenn. 2004) , a case in which the Supreme Court dete rmined that the trial cour

t erre d in re l y ing on the results of the de fenda nt’s sex offe nder p oly g raph e x amination when de ny ing the defe ndant’s reque st for parole. I n rea ching this conclusion, the Supreme Court sp e c i f i c a l l y n o t e d t h a t t h e “ p r o p r i e t y o f u s i n g p o l y g r a p h te sts in treatment and monitoring pr og rams for sex offender s was not at issue in [ that] case.” Id . at 825 n.7. T h e C o u rt also ref ere nced T .C.A. § 39-13-704( d)(2) wh ic h

d isc usses the use of

poly g raph e x aminations when monit oring and treating “sex offe nders who have been ‘ place d
on probation, incar cer ated with the depar tment of corr ection, plac ed on parole , or plac ed in community corr ections.’” Id . (quoting T.C.A. § 3 9

- 1 3

- 7 0 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) )

. We n o te , in r e s o lv in g th is is s u e , tha t the po lyg ra phre su lts are no t be ingus e d in a c ri min a l c on te xt to e sta

bli sh F a the r’ s g uil t or

inn oc e nc e or

to e sta bli sh wheth e r h e is e nti tle d to parole

. See In r eA.J

.H. , N o
. M 2 0 0 5

- 0 0 1 7 4

- CO A

- R3

- PT , 2 0 0 5 WL 3190324, at *10 (Te nn. Ct. App. M.S., filed N ovember 28, 2005), no appl. perm. appeal filed

(discussing the impact of the father ’s prior ref usal to take a

poly g raph e x amination and noting that “[t] here is no statutory prohibition in t he use of poly g raph te sts as a par t of a psy chosexual evaluation in t h i s n on-cr iminal context .”). . . . The results of the polyg raph e x aminati on wer e utiliz ed by Miz e for one limit ed purpose , i.e. , to emphasize that Father wa s not being truthful when he denied se x ually

abusing J .H.
In re P.J.G. , 2007 W L 1 2 3 7 7 8 9 , at * 10-11. In light of P.J.G. , we c onclude that the tr ial court proper ly considere d Father’s f ailed polyg raph te st results and we r ejec t the claim that the trial c ourt place d undue empha sis on them.T

. C

. A

. § 3 6

- 1

- 1 1 3 (g) has b een am end ed ef f ect i ve January 1 , 20 0 9

. E v e n tho ugh t he am end m ent has no 4 i m p act on t he p res ent case, we wi l l , nevert hel ess , ci t e t o t he vers i o n of t he st at ut e i n ef f ect at t he t i m e o f

t ri al t hrougho ut this o p inio n
. -17- Mother’s a

nd Father’s pa

renta l rig hts were terminated pur suant to T.C.A. § 36-1-113( g )(2) - (4 ) ( 20 05 ). Th e se statut or y pr ov isi on s p ro vid e a s f

oll ow s: 4 (g ) Initiation of termination of pare ntal or guar dianship rig hts may be ba se d u po n a ny of the fo llo wi ngg ro un ds :

* * * (2) The re ha s been substantial nonc ompliance by the par ent or g uardia n with the s tatement of responsibiliti es in a pe rmane ncy plan or a pla n of ca re pur suant to the provisions of title 37, c hapter 2, part 4; (3) The child has bee n re m oved fr om the home of the pa rent or g uardia n by order of a c ourt for a

period of six (6) months and: (A) T he conditions that led to the child’s remova l or other c onditions th a t in a ll r e a s o n a

b le p r o b a

b il it y w o u ld c a

u s e th e c h il d

to be subjected to further abuse or neg lect and that, there fore , preve nt the
c hil d’ s saf

e retur n to the c are of

the pa re nt( s) or g ua rd ian( s) , s til l pe rs ist ; (B ) Ther e is littl e li kelihood that these conditions wil l be re medied at
an e arl y date so that th e c hil d can be sa fe ly re tur ne d to th e pa

re nt( s) or g uardia

n(s) in the ne ar f

uture; and (C ) T he c on tin

uatio n o f t

he pa re nt o r gua

rd ian a nd c hil d r e la tio ns hip g reatly diminis hes the child’s cha nces of ear ly integ ration into a saf

e, stable and pe rmane nt home; [ and] (4) The pare nt or guar dian has been found to have committed severe child abuse as define d in § 37-1-102, unde r any prior orde r of a

court or is found by

the cour t hear ing the petiti o n t o terminate pa renta l ri g hts or the pe tit ion

fo r a do pti on

to h a ve c omm it ted se ve re c hil d
a bu se a g a ins t th e c hil d w ho is t he su bje c t of the pe tit ion

or a g a ins t any s i b l i n g or half- sibling of suc h child, or any other c hild residing temporar ily

or per manently in the home of such pa rent or guardia

n[.]T he s t at ut es r ef er en ce d i n T .C .A

. § 3 7

- 1

- 1 0 2 (b )(2 1 )(C ) p ertain t o va riou s sexu al o f f en ses includ i ng ag gr ava t ed 5

s exu al bat t er y , ag gr ava t ed r ape, r ape of a c hi l d, et c. -18- T h e d ef i n i t i o no f “ s ev er e c h i l d

ab u s e, ” r ef

er en ce d i nT

. C

. A. § 3 6 -1 -1 1 3 (g) (4 ) a n d re l ied upon by the trial cour

t in the present c ase, is found at T.C

. A. § 3 7 -1 -102(b)(21)(A )-( C) (2005), whic h pr ov ide a s f

oll ow s:

“ Se ve re c hil d a

bu se ” me ans : (A ) T he kn ow inge xp os ure of a c hil d to or

the kn ow ingfa ilure to protec t a child from a

buse or ne g lect that i s likely to cause g reat bo dil y ha rm or de a th a nd the kn ow ingus e of

fo rc e on a c hil d that is likely to cause g reat bodily

harm or de ath; (B ) Specif

i c b ru t ali ty , abuse or

neg lect towar ds a child that in the opinion of qualified e xp e rts has ca used or will re asonably

be expected to produce severe psy chosis, sever e neur otic disorder, se vere depre ssion, severe developmental delay or re tardation, or sever e impairment of the c hild’s ability to f unction adequately

in the child’s environment, a n d t h e knowing failure to protect a child from such conduct; [or] (C ) T h e c o mm is s io no f

an y a c t t o w ar d s th e c h il d

p r o h ib it e d

by §§ 39-13-502- -39-13- 504, 39-13-522, 39- 15-302, and 39- 17-1005 or the knowing failure to protec t the child from the c ommissi on of any such ac t towards the c hild . . . . 5
The e vidence does not pr eponder ate ag ainst the trial court’ s finding that there is cle ar a nd convincing
e vid e nc e (1 ) F ath er wa s g uil ty of c omm itt ing“ se ve re c hil d a bu se ” a s d e fi ne d b y

the a pp lic a ble statutes and (2) Mother “f ailed to protec t the child from the commission of any such ac t towards the child.” T.C.A. § 37-1- 102(b)( 21)(C).
The ne x t issue is whether the tr ial court err ed when it f ound that DCS had proven, c lear ly and convincing ly , that Mother’s a nd Fat h er’ s pare ntal rig hts should be terminated pursua nt to T.C.A. § 36-1-113( g )(2) . Whil e ther e may be seve ral re quirements in a pe rmane ncy pl an , s ome may

be
m o re cr i t i ca l t h an o t h er s
. Gi v en t h e f i n d i n gs o f t h e t ri al co u rt at t h e d ep en d en cy an d n egl ec th ea ri n g, protec ting the Child from sexual or phy sical abuse was pa ramount. Matthews te stified that Mother failed to c omplete counse ling g ear ed towar d Mother lea rning to protect the Child fr o m ab use and Mother neve r showed an abili ty to so protect the Child. This is critical g iven the trial c ourt’s finding that Mother lied on beha lf of F ather and wa s try ing to p ro t ec t h im, to the detriment of the Child. L ikewise, with F ather, completion of sex offende r treatment was cr itical to his case. Without
su c c e ssf ul c omp le tio n o f s e x off

e nd e r t re a tme nt a

nd re c omm e nd a tio ns fr om t hat tr e a tme nt, DC S would be unable to return the Child to Father’s c are . Acc ording ly , we a ffirm t h e judg ment of the-19-

tr ia l court fi nd ing , cle arl y and c on vin c ing ly , tha t Moth e r a nd F a the r f a ile d to su

bs tanti a lly

c omp ly with the require ments in their respe ctive per manenc y plans.

We next deter

mine whether

the trial cour

t properly

fou n d t h at additional g rounds for terminating Mother’s and F ather ’s par ental rig hts had bee n proven pur suant to T.C.A. § 36-1- 113(g )(3) . There is no doubt that the Chil d has bee n remove d from the home f or at lea st six months pursuant to orde r of the c ourt. Wit hout Mother and Fa t h er taking and succ essfully completing counseling and/or tre atment, t here is a li kelihood of continued a buse which pr events the Child from safe ly being returne d to their ca

re. The re w as no proof offe red at trial sugg esting that the conditions subjecting the Child to pot ent i al fu rt h er a buse could or w ould be re medied at a n ear ly date whic h
wo uld the re by a llo w the Chi ld’ s r e tur

n to his bio log ic a l pa

re nts ’ c are in the ne ar futur e
. Th e Chi ld has bee n in foster c are since Mar ch 2006. He has been in g ood foster homes and his curre nt foster fa mil y is d e sir ou s o f a do pti nghim . Co nti nu a tio n o f t he pa re nt/ c hil d r e la tio ns hip wo uld g re a tly diminis h the Child’s chanc es for integ ration i nto a stable a nd safe home environme nt. We affirm the trial cour

t’s finding that g rounds had been proven clea rly and convincing ly

pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-113( g )(3)

. The ne x t issue is whether the tr ial court c orre ctly found that g rounds had be en prove n pursuant to T.C.A. § 36-1-113( g )(4) . As applica ble t o t h e present ca se, this statute provides that g rounds for te rminating pare ntal rig hts ex ist when:

The pa rent or guardia

n has bee n found . . . by

the cour t hear ing the pe tit io n to te rm inate pa

re nta l r ig hts or

the pe tit ion

fo r a do pti on

to have c omm itt e d sev e re c hil d ab us e [as de fi ne d in § 37- 1- 10 2] a g a ins t the child who is the subject of the p et i t i o n . . . or

an yoth e r c hil

d residing temporarily or permanently i n the home of suc h parent or guardian[.] T.C.A. § 36-1-113( g )(4) (empha sis added).
Withre sp e c t to Mo ther , th e tr ia l c ourt sp e c if ic a lly fo un d th a t sh e ha d k

no wi ng ly fa ile d to protec t the Child from abuse by Father. In fac t, the trial court f ound that Mother had a ctually lied to protect F ather , all to the detriment of the Child and other children t h at had lived in the house. Thus , M o ther knowing ly failed to prote ct the Child from sever e abuse . T.C.A. § 37-1- 102(b)( 21)(A) . The testimony at trial wa s that the abuse c ommitt ed by Father upon the Chil d and oth e r c hil dr e n li vin g in t

he ho us e wa s suc h tha t th e a bu se wa s li ke ly

to c a us e g re a t bo dil y

ha rm to all of the c hildren. This is no gr eat lea p consideringthe seriousne ss of t he abuse Father wa s found to have c ommitt ed. The testimony of Her man, which was unchalleng ed, was that the abuse inflicted by Father wa s likely

to cause one if not more of the var ious psy cholog ical proble ms list ed in T.C.A. § 37-1-102(b)(21)( B) . We affir m the trial court’ s judgme nt finding D CS had proven, cle arly and
c on vin c ing ly , th a t g ro un ds e xiste d to te rm inate the pa re nta l r ig hts of

Mo the r a nd F a the r p ur su a nt t o T.C.A. § 36-1-113( g )(4)

.-20-

The f in a l is s u e is w h e th e r th e tr ia l c o u rt e r r e d w h e n it c o n c lu d e d th a t D CS had prove n, clea rly and convincingly , that it was in the Child’s best interest for Mother ’s and F ather ’s par ental rig hts to b e te r

mi n a te d

. T h e r e le v an t s tatuto r y p r o v is io n is T

. C. A

. § 3 6

- 1

- 1 1 3 ( i) ( 2 0 0 5 ) , which pr ov ide s a s f

oll ow s: (i ) I n d e te rm ini ngwh e the r t e rm ination of pa re nta l or g ua rd ians hip rig hts is in t he best intere st of the child pursuant to this part, the c ourt s h al l co n s i d er , b u ti s n o tl i m i t edt o , t h e f o l l o wi n g: (1) Whether

the pa re nt or g uardia

n has made such an a djustment of circ umstance, c onduct, or c onditions as t o m ak e it safe and in the child’s best intere st to be in the home of the pa rent or guardia

n; (2) Whether

the par ent or guardia

n has fa iled to effe ct a lasting adjustment after

rea sonable ef

forts by available social ser

vices ag encie s for such dur ation of time that lasting ad j u s t m ent does not
rea sonably

appea r possible; (3) Whether

the par ent or guardia

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

a mea ningf ul relation s h ip has otherwise been e stablished betwee n the par ent or guardia n and the c hild; (5 ) T he e ff

e c t a c ha ng e of c are tak ers and

ph y sic a l e nv ir on me nt i s likely to have on the c hild’s emotional, psy cholog ical and me dical condition; (6) Whether the pare nt or

g uardia n, or other pe rson re siding with the pare nt or g uardia

n, has shown brutality , phy sical, sexual, emotional
or ps y c ho log ic a l a

bu se , o r n e g le c t tow ard the c hil d, or ano the r c hil d or adult in the family

or household; (7) Whether

the phy sical environme nt of t h e par ent’s or guardia n’s home is healthy

and saf e, whe ther ther e is criminal ac tivity in the home, or whe ther ther e is such use of alcohol or c ontrolled substance s as may rende r the pa

rent o r g uardia

n consistently

unable to ca

re f or the child in a saf

e and sta ble manner ; (8) Whether the pare nt’s or g uardia n’s mental and/or e motional status would be detr imental to the child or pre vent the p ar en t o r g uardia n from ef fec tively providing safe and stable c are and super vision for the child; or-21- (9) Whether the parent or g uardia n has paid c hild support consistent with t h e c h il d s u p p o rt gu id e li n e s p r o mu lg a te d b y th e d e p artme nt pursuant to § 36-5-101.

T. C.A . § 36 -1 -1 13 (i ). Whe n c on sid e ri ngthe c hil d’ s b e st i nte re st, the c ourt mus t take the c hil d’ s, rathe r than the pare nt’s, perspe ctive. Whit e v. Moody , 171 S.W .3d 187, 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
The fa cts establish that neither Mother nor Father have ma de an a djustment of circumstanc e su c h tha t it wo uld be sa fe fo r the Chi ld to re tur n to the ir c are
. Th is is the sit uatio n d e sp ite re a so na

ble eff orts made by DCS. The Child has been in f oster car e since Mar ch 2006 and the pare nts have ha d
a mp l e t i m e t o e f

f e c ta l a s t i n g a d

j u s t m e n t

. T h e r e i s n o d o u b tt h a tF a t h e r

“ h a s s h o w nb r

u t a l i t y, 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[.] ” T.C.A. § 36-1- 113(i)(6) . Mother, likewise, f ailed to protec t the Child from Fathe r’s a

buse. The phy sical environme nt of the biolog ical paren t s’ home is neither healthy nor saf e for the Child. After revie wing the applicable fac tors in lig ht of the fa cts discussed at leng th above, we rea dily conclude that the evidenc e does not pre ponderate ag ainst the trial cour t’s conclusion, made by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e, that t er m i n ation of Mother’ s and F ather ’s pa re nta l r ig hts is i n th e Chi ld’ s b e st i nte re st.
V

. The judg ment of the trial court is aff irmed. Costs on appea l are taxed to the appe llants, Ethel B . a nd Da vid B ., and the ir sure ty , if any , f or wh ic h e xec uti on

may iss ue
. Th is c a se is r e mand e d to the trial cour

t for enf orce ment of the c ourt’s j udg ment and for the collec tion of costs assessed be low, all pursuant to applica

ble law.

_______________________________ CHARL ES D. SUSANO, J R., J UDGE