T en n. C t

. A p p
. R

. 1 0 st ates: 1

T hi s C o urt , wi t h t he co ncurrence of al l judges pa rt i ci p at i ng i n t he case, m ay af firm , r e v e rs e o r m o d i f y t he
ac t i o ns o f

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

. W he n a ca se i s d eci d ed by m em o randum o p i ni o n i t shal l b e d esi gnat ed " M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N , " shal l no t be pub l i shed, and
s hal l not be ci t ed or r el i ed on for a ny r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e.



### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE A pr il 14, 200 5 S es sio n ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E D EP A R TM EN T O F C HI LD R EN ’S S ER V IC ES v. BI NTA AHMAD Appeal f romthe Juvenile Court for Coff ee C ounty No. 342-00J Tim othy J. Brock, Judge

No. M2004- 02604-COA-R 3-P T - F iled April 26, 2005

Mother appe als termination of her pare ntal rig hts to her two minor children. She and her two infant children immigrated to the United States illega lly in 1998 when the c hildren we re two and one y ear s of ag e, re spectively

. I n 1999, Mother was arr ested on felony theft charg es. Be ing unable to m ake bond, she re mained inca

rce rate d for ove r a y ear

following which she pled guilty to a fe lony . She was then turned ove r to immigration officials and w as deta ined f o r an ad d i t i onal two y ear s only to be depo rt ed t o Nig eria

in Dece mber 2002, whe re she rema ins. The childre n have r emained in f oster car e for more than f

ive y ear s. Mother appeal s cl ai ming the e vidence to be insufficie nt to prove g ro un ds fo r t e rm inatio n a ndthat te rm inatio n is no t in thec hil dr e n’ s b e st i nte re st. We a ff irm. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Juvenile Court Affi rm ed
F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opi nion of the court, in which W I L L I AM B. C A IN , J ., and D ONAL D P. H A R R IS , S P
. J ., joined.
J eff rey D. Ridner, Tullahoma, Te nnessee , for the a ppellant, B inta Ahmad.
Paul G

. Summers, A ttorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; and J oe Shirley , Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for theapp e lle e , St a te of

Te nn e sse e De pa

rt me nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1 The pa renta l rig hts of the mother and the putative father of e ach of h er t wo chil dren w ere te rm inate d. Th e pu tativ e fathe rs ’ p are nta l rig hts we re te rm inate d o n th e g ro un ds of aba nd on me nt.T hr ough out t hes e p r oceedi ng s , t he mo t her ha s ei t her been i nca r cer at ed on t he fel ony ch ar ges , awa i t ed 2 d e p o r t a t i o n o r r e s i d e d i n Ni g e r i a fo l l o w i n g d e p o r t a t i o n
. S h e w a s fo r t u n a t e t o h a v e b e e n a b l y r e p r e s e n t e d b y J e f f r e y D. R id n e r w h o ha s z e a lo u sly a d v o c a te d o n he r b e h a lf.

A f am i l y f

ri end cared fo r t he chi l d ren f o r s everal m o nt hs fo l l o wi ng her i ncarcerat i o n. W hen i t be cam e ap p arent 3
t hat t he mo t her was not goi ng t o be re l eas ed f r om j ai l , t he f

r i end c ont act ed t he D epar t ment i n J ul y of 200 0, advi s i ng t hat h e w a s n o l on g e r a bl e t o p r ov i de c on s t a n t c a r e for t h e m. -2- Neither putative father a

ppeals. The mother’s p ar en t al ri ghts were terminated on the g rounds of abandonme nt and failure to r emedy persistent conditions. She appea ls, r aising four i s s u es : (1) whether the Depa

rtment proved g rounds for te rmination by clea r and c onvincing ev idence ; (2) wh e the r the De pa

rt me nt p ro ve d th a t it

c omp lie d w ithits ma nd a te to r e st ore th e famil y un it i f possible; (3) whethe r t he De partment prove d that it made re asonable eff orts, and (4) whether te rm inatio n w a s inthec hil dr e n’ s b e st i nte re st. 2 The g enesis of the grounds for termination of m other’s pa renta l rig hts was when the mother was inca rce rate d in May

1999 for f

elony theft. Ever since then she has been unable to pr ovide for her c hildren or to re medy

the conditions which led to the Depa rtment taking custody of her children. 3 Following her a

rre st, the mother rema ined in jail for over a y ear beca use she c ould not make bond. After

a leng thy incar cer ation, she pled g uiltyto a fe lony theft char g e. Due to the fac t she was a n i l l e g a l i m m i g r a n t a n d a c o n v i c t e d f e l o n , s h e w a s n o t r e l e a s e d

. I n s t e a d , s h e w a s tr a ns fe rr e d to immigration officials who de tained her pending deportation.
The mother and bo t h o f h er ch ildren ar e illeg al immigrants. She was born in Nig eria but claims she i s an Eg yptian citizen because her f ather was Eg yptian; however , United States immigration officials conc luded that s he wa s a Nig eria n citizen. The mother identified A ndrew Oniha as the fathe r of the older child and Anthony Ukpetnan as the fathe r of the y oung er c hild. She states that she ha s neither se en nor he ard f rom the childre n’s fathers since leaving Eng land in 1998. The putative f

ather s, whose last kn o wn addr esses we re in L ondon, Eng land, wer e name d as defe ndants. They wer e serve d by publication in L ondon, Eng land; howeve r, neither filed an answer.
B e c aus e themothe r w a s u na ble t o pro ve he r c iti zen sh ip t o th e satis fa c tio n o f U .S. immigration officials, they informed he r that she would be deporte d to Nige ria. Prior to the s c h e d u l e d d e p o rt a t i o n , t h e m o t h e r w a s p r e s e n t e d w i t h a d i l e m m a n o p ar e n t s h o u l d h a v e t o f a c e
. It was not unlike the dilemma fac ed by the mother of an infant child whe n King Soloman was to decide which of two w omen was the mother of an infant. Thoug h we c annot appr eciate the diffic ulties she would experience attempting to r aise two y oung children in Nige ria without assets, i ncome, she lter or family , we a ssume it would be a most difficult, if not almost imposs ible, task. Her choice s were limit ed to two hea

rtrending options. She made a decision she believed to bein the best interest of her children, that they rema in in the custody of the Depa rtment with the foster family in Tennesse e.I t i s mo s t t r agi c t hat M ot her coul d not prove s he was an E gy pt i an ci t i zen
. I f s he had, t hen s he and h er ch i l dren 4

c o u ld ha v e b e e n d e p o rte d to g e the r to E g yp t. H o w e v e r, sin c e sh e d id no t p r o v e h e r c iti z e n sh ip , i m m igr a tio n o ff ic ia ls
c o n c lud e d tha t she w a s a N ige ria n c iti z e n a n d d e p o rte d he r to N ige ria . B e c a u se o f co n c e rn s fo r th e c h ild re n ’s sa fety in N ige ria , she re q u e ste d tha t he r c h ild re n n o t b e d e p o rte d to N ige ria . H e r p la n w a s to r e lo c a te to a s a fe c o u n try a n d re c la im her chi l d ren.

T he t wo vi s i t s wer e faci l i t at ed by t he D epar t ment an d wer e i n t he penal faci l i t y i n Al abama. 5
-3- Since her deportation to Nigeria, the mother has been unable to r emedy the conditions which nece ssitated the Depa

rtment taking custody of her children. The Depa rtment has had custody

of the 4 chi ld ren si nce Se pte mbe r o f 2 00 0 b e c aus e the rewa s n o f a mil y me mbe r o r f

ri e nda va ila

bleto pr op e rl y c arefo r the c hil dr e n w hil e sh e wa s in c arc e rate d. Du e to h e r i nc arc e rati on , whi c h w a s in Al aba ma , a ndhe r de te nti on by imm ig ratio n o ff

ic ia ls, wh ic h w a s inL ou isi a na , th e c hil dr e n h a ve on ly been a ble to visit wit h their mother twice in the last six y ear s, which is more than half of ea ch child’s life. 5
Parents havea fundamental rig ht to the car e, custody and control of their children. Stanley
v . I lli no is , 4 05 U. S. 6 45 , 6 51 (1 97 2) ; Ha wk v . H awk , 855 S.W .2d 573, 577 (Tenn. 1993). This rig ht i s s u p er i o r t o t he claims of other per sons and the g overnme nt, y et it is not absolute. A court may terminate a

pare nt’s pare ntal rig hts if it finds byclea r and c onvincin g evidenc e that one of the statutory g rounds for te rmination of parental rights has been e stablished and that the termination of su c h ri g hts is in the be st int e re sts of the c hil d. Te nn . Co de An n. § 3 6- 1- 11 3( c ); J on e s v . G ar re tt , 92 S.W. 3d83 5, 83 8 ( Te nn . 2 00 2) ; In r e A

. W. , 11 4 S. W.3 d 5 41 , 5 44 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 3) ; In re C

. W. W. , 37 S.W .3d 467, 475-76 (Te nn. Ct. App. 2000).
I n an ef fort to balanc e the important, fundame ntal rig hts of a par ent and the be st interest of a c hil d, ou r l e g isl a tur e ha s p ro vid e d th a t pa re nta l rig hts ma y

on ly be te rm inate d f

or sp e c if ic , w e lldefine d g rounds. I

n r e A

. W. , 114 S.W .3d at 544. The statutory g rounds for te rmination of par ental rig hts a re set forth within Te nn. Code Ann. § 36-1-113( g ). The e x istence of any one of the statutory grounds i s sufficient to support a trial court’s de cision to terminate par ental rig hts. I n r e C

. W. W. , 37 S.W .3d at 473; In re Vale n t ine , 7 9 S. W.3 d 5 39 , 5 46 (T e nn . 2 00 2) . O ne of tho se g ro un ds is failure to remedy

persistent conditions. Tenn. Code Ann. § 36- 1-113(g )(3)

. The statute pr ovides for termination when the child has been remove d from the home of the pare nt by order of a c ourt for a

period of six (6) months and (i ) Th e c on dit ion s wh ic h le d to thec hil d' s r e mov a l or oth e r c on dit ion s w hic h ina ll rea sonable proba

bilitywould cause the child to be subject ed to further abuse or neg lect and w hi ch , t h er ef o re, pr event the c hild's saf e re turn to the ca

re of the pa re nt( s) or g ua rd ia n( s) , s til l pe rs ist ; (i i) Th e reis l itt le lik eli hoodthat th e se c on dit ion s w ill be re me die d at a n e arl y date so that the child ca n be saf el y re t u rn ed t o the par ent(s) or g uardia n(s) in the ne ar future; andT h e sta tute o n ly re q u ire s a m inim u m p e rio d o f six m o n ths . T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 3 6 -1 -1 1 3 (g )( 3 )( A ). 6

T hi s i s b ecause t he m o t her and t he D ep art m ent co ul d no t p rove t he chi l d ren we re B ri t i sh ci t i zens and E ngl and 7

wo ul d not p erm i t t he chi l d ren t o ret urn t o t hat co unt ry
. U nl ess t he m o t her and t he D ep art m ent co ul d pro ve t he p arent age o f t he p utati ve f athe rs and t ha t t he y were B rit i sh cit i ze ns, and t he refo re th e c hil d ren we re to o , no am o un t o f eff o rts , re a so n a b le o r w e ll a b o v e a n d b e yo n d re a so n a b le , w o u ld ha v e sa v e d the d a y. -4- (i ii) Th e c on tin uatio n o f the pare nt o r g ua rd ia n a ndc hil d r e latio ns hip g re a tly diminis hes the c hild's c hance s of ea rly integ ration i nto a saf

e, stable and perma nent home. Tenn. Code Ann. §36- 1

- 1 1 3 ( g ) (3)( A). The rec ord provides c lear and convinc ing e vidence to support the finding that the m other has been unable to provide for the children for more than six y ear s, that she has be en unable to r emedy the conditions w hich led to the re moval of her children, and that there is lit tle likelihood, if any , that these conditions will be remedied at an early date. That is sufficie nt 6 to establish one g round for termination, See State v . Layne , No. M2001-00652-COA- R3-J V, 2002 WL 12 63 20 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . F e b. 1, 20 02 ), a ndthee xiste nc e of a ny on e of thestatut ory

g ro un ds wi ll support a termination of pare nt al ri gh t s. I n r e C

. W. W. , 37 S.W .3d 467, 473-74 (Te nn. Ct. App. 2 0 0 0 ) ( ci t i n g In re M

.C.G. , No. 01A01-9809- J V-00461, 1999 WL 332729, at *5 (T enn. Ct. App. May 26 , 1 99 9) ; De

pa rtm e nt o

f Ch ild re n's Servs. v . D ar r , N o
. 0 3 A 0 1

- 9 7 0 6

- JV

- 0 0 2 1 3 , 1 9 9 8 WL 128874, at *3 (Te nn. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 1998).
The re asonable ness of the e fforts of the Depa rtment is disputed. Mother claims the Depa rtment did litt le other than write a few letters and make a few phone calls. She also complains that there was no continuit y of ef fort due to thre e diffe rent c ase ma nag ers ha ving w orked the case
. Th e De pa

rt me nt c la ims it made r e a so na blee ff orts b ut w a s th wa

rt e d at e ve ry

fr on t du e to international roa dblocks.
Whil e the De partment’s eff orts do not a

ppear to be Her culean, they wer e re asonable under the circ umstances. More over, it is most appare nt that no matter how zealous its eff orts, the reunific ation of t he family unit, or pl ace ment with a familymember, w ere bey ond the control of the Depa rtment due to the international co n s t ra i nts over which the Depa rtment had no c ontrol. The ou tc omeof

thi s c a se wa s p re do min a te ly a ff e c te d b y matte rs be y on d th e c on tr ol o f the De pa rt me nt. Particularly , the criminal courts of Alabama, the U.S. and B ritish imm igr ation officia ls, and t he mother’s inability to e stablish he r citizenship and that of her two children. A ll of these contributed to determine the outcome of this ca se. Mor eo v er , t h e mother wa s unable to provide c urre nt or a c c ur a te inf

ormatio n to ide nti fy or

loc a te e ith e r f

a the r o f the c hil dr e n. She ha d n ot k e pt i n to uc h w ith e ith e r f a the r andha d no kno wl e dg e of the ir ho me a dd re ss o r e mpl oyme nt. Furthe rm or e , s he c ou ld no t pr ov idea ny

inf ormatio n o n th e c iti zen sh ip of e ith e r fathe r wh ic h g re a tly dim ini sh e d th e e ff

orts of a ll i nv olv e d to re loc a te thec hil dr e n w iththemothe r’ s c ou sinin E ng la nd

. As a re su lt, theon ly 7 op tio n w a s to de po rt the c hil dr e n wi th the ir mothe r o r a llo w the m to re ma in w iththefo ste r p are nts in Tennesse e.-5-

Th e fi na l is su e is w he the r te rm inatio n of the mothe r’ s par e nta l rig hts is in th e be st i nte re st of the c hildren. I t is sufficie nt if the children have been in foster ca re f or more than six months and, a s h e re , th e pa

re nt h a s b e e n a ndre ma ins unabl e to provid e a ndma int a in s ta bleho us ing a ndto provide a dequate support for the c hildren and the re is no likelihood that these co n ditions wil l be reme died at an e arly

date. Te nn. Code Ann. §36-1-113( g )(3)

. Further, it is evident that the childre n wo uldsu ff

e r e mot ion a lly

fr om a c ha ng e of

c are take rs be c aus e thec hil dr e n h a ve been in a sta ble home environme nt for six y ear s and have only seen their mother on two occa sions during this period. We fully rec og nize this to be a tra g ic ca se; neve rtheless, it is most evident that it i s in the children’ s best interest to terminate the mother’s pa renta l rig hts in order to exti ng uish what has been six y ear s of purg atory

to make the c hildren available for a doption. Perhaps termination of the mother’s pa renta l rights would not have been ne cessa ry had the mother not migr ated illeg ally to the United States, or had she not committed a felony in Alabama, or ha d s he be e n a

bleto p ro ve that sh e wa s a n Eg ypti a n c iti zenor that th e c hil dr e n w e reB ri tis h citizens. How ever , putting all the “ifs, ands or buts” aside, what we are fac ed with is a mother who was va nquished to N ige ria and who is una ble to remedy

the conditions that led to the Depa rtment having to take custody of the children, and two minor children whose lives have been in limbo for six y ear s.
As tr a g ic a s th is c a se is, we areno t un min df ul o f w hat appear s to be a sil ve r l ini ng , th a t is the childre n have be en re siding this entire time with foster par ents who desire to adopt both children. This silver lining make s it obvious t hat it is in the children’s best interest to terminate the mother’s pare ntal rig hts in order to make the childre n available for a doption.
I n con c lu s io n , w e h o ldth a t th e D e p artm e n t h a s p r o v e n b y c le ar a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n ce g rounds for te rmination, failure t o re m ed y persistent conditions, and that termination of pare ntal ri g hts is i n th e c hil dr e n’ s b e st i nte re st. Th e re fo re , th e jud g me nt o f the tria l c ou rt is a ff irme d a ndthi s matte r i s r e ma nd e d w ithc os ts o f a pp e a l a sse sse d a g a ins t th e De pa rt me nt o f C hil dr e n’ s Se rv ic e s.

___________________________________ FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR ., J UDGE