In a d d iti o n to the C a rr o ll C o u n ty ar re st fo r D U I a n d c h ild e n d a n g e rm e n t, a n d the M a rc h 1 8 , 2 0 0 0 p u b lic 1 i nt oxi cat i on ar r es t , wh i ch l ed t o M oo dy ’ s en r ol l ment i n t he d rug a nd a l co ho l progr am at St

. Fr anc i s ( bo t h di s cus s ed i n f ra ) , t h er e h av e be en nu mer ou s compl ai n t s a n d a r r es t s i n v ol v i n g M oody a n d Ar g o. O n Se pt embe r 24, 2000, M oody (c o n tinu e d ...) 

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

AT JAC KSON January 20, 200 4 S es sio n
IN RE: M.E.A. BY: E LI Z ABETH JO Y ARGO EXUM, ET AL 

### . v.

KI MBERLY DARLENE MOODY, ET AL 

### . A Dire ct A ppeal f

rom the Juvenile Court for Madison Coun ty No. 37-31,926 The Honorable Larry Mc Ke nzie, Judge

No. W2003-01669-C OA-R3-P T - F iled Fe bruary 19, 2004

This is an appea l of a termination of parental rights case. Appellant mother c ontends that the petitioners have no standing to bring the petition and also that the petit ioners failed to prove by clea r and c onvin c ing e vid e nc e the g ro un ds fo r te rm inatio n an d that the te rm inatio n wa s in th e be st i nte re st of the c hil d. We a ff

ir m. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Juvenile Court Affi rm ed

W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J . and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., joined. David W. Camp, J ackson, F or Appe llant, Kimberly Moody
Catherine B . Clay

ton, J ackson, F or Appe llees, Elizabeth J oy Arg o Ex um and J ames L .Ex um
OP IN ION

This is a termination of pa renta l rig hts case. O n Dec ember 13, 1999, M.E.A. (the “ Child”) was born to Kimber ly

Dar lene Moody

(“Moody ,” “Mothe r,” or “Appe llant”) a

nd her boyfriend, Da vid Th oma s Ar g o (“ Ar g o, ” or “ F athe r” ). At

the tim e of

M. E. A. ’s bir

th, Mo od y wa s ma rr ie d to Randy Thomas Moody . Randy

Thomas Moody

was inca rce rate d at the time of M.E.A.’ s birth and he re mained so at the time of t ri al. M.E.A.’s birth c ertificate spec ifically lists Argo a s the fathe r. Both Moody

and Ar g o have a long history of arr ests and other problems associated with alcohol and drugabuse. 1(

. . . con t i n u ed) 1

s i g n ed a domes t i c as s au l t w ar r an t i n M adi s on Count y , T en n es s ee a g ai n s t Ar g o. O n N ov embe r 10, 2000, M oody reque st ed t hat t he charge b e d i smi ss ed , exp l ai ni ng t hat “ b o t h pa rt i es had b een d ri nki ng heavi l y and t hat s he [di d n’ t ] have
a cl ea r re col l ec t i on of

t h e e v en t s

. ” O n M ay 23, 2001, t h e da y bef or e s h e wa s s ch edu l ed t o a ppea r i n c ou r t f or a c u s t ody heari ng, M o o d y and A rgo were i nvo l ved i n ano t her al t erc a t i o n i n M ad i son C o unt y , whi ch res ul t ed i n A rgo p l ead i ng g u i l t y t o a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t

. Ag a i n , M oo dy s i g n e d a s t a t e me n t t h a t s h e a n d A r g o h a d b e e n dr i n k i n g h e a v i l y a t t h e t i me o f t h e inc id e n t an d d id no t re c a ll a n y thr e a t with a kn ife. O n M a r c h 2 5 , 2 0 0 2 , M o o d y w a s a rr e ste d a g a in in C a rr o ll C ount y f or publ i c i nt oxi cat i on at t he H i t chi ng P ost and P aul ’ s P oo l R oo m. She f ai l ed t o a pp ear i n cour t f or t hi s ch ar ge. O n M ay 28 , 20 02 , M oo dy was ar r es t ed i n H ender s on C ount y f or publ i c i nt oxi cat i on. She pl ed gu i l t y an d pai d a f i ne. O n J un e 24, 200 2, M oo dy was ar r es t ed i n Car r ol l Co un t y f or publ i c i nt oxi cat i on, f or w hi ch s he pl ed gu i l t y
. A cr i mi nal warrant was i ss ued agai nst M o o d y on June 24 , 2 0 0 2 f o r as saul t on a M s. T eresa Sm al l

. M o o d y f ai l ed t o ap p ear i n co urt f or t h i s c h ar g e. O n J u l y 30, 2002, M oody wa s ar r es t ed i n H en der s on Coun t y on t h r ee ch ar g es : pos s es s i on of a w ea pon whi l e u nder t he i nf

l uen ce, publ i c i nt oxi cat i on, an d re ckl es s endang er ment f or s hoot i ng a g un i n t he ci t y over an i nh abi t ed
a re a . T h e se c h a rg e s w e re p e n d ing a t t h e ti m e o f t h e he a rin g in this m a tter

.

-2- Upon the birth of M.E.A., she wa s in the phy sical custody of Moody

and Ar g o. Since Moody
an d Ar go h adn o p l ac e t o l i v e o r m ea n s t o p ro v i d e fo r th e ch i l d , Ar go ’s s i s t er , E l i z ab et hJ o y Ar go Ex um, and her

husband, James F

. Ex um ( “Exums,” or “Appe llees”) helped with housingand other
ne e ds . M oo dy

and Ar g o mo ve d, wi th M .E .A ., int o a mo bi le ho me at Ro lli ngAc re s E state s in J ac k s o n, Tenne ssee. Shortly there afte r, Moody ’s sister, Caroly n Cunningham, and her

husband, David Cunningham, a lso move d into the trailer. When the Child wa s less than one month old, Mo od y wa s arr e ste d in

Carr oll Cou

nty , T e nn e sse e fo r d

ri vin gun de r t

he inf lue nc e . Sh e wa s a lso cited with child enda

ng erme nt beca

use M.E.A. wa s with h er i n the vehicle and wa s unrestra ined. Moody a p p e ar e d in c o urt o n M ar c h 3 , 2 0 0 0 an d w a s c o n v ic te d o n b o th o f f e n s e s

. On Marc h 18, 2000, M o o d

y was a g ain ar

rested in Car

roll County

for public intoxi cation. Moody subsequently

pled g uilty to the offe nse and pa id a fine. Moody then enrolled in a n inpatient drugand alc ohol prog ram at St. F ra nc is H os pit a l in

Me mph is.

On Marc h 3 0, 20 00 , Ca

ro ly n Cunn ingham f

iled a Swo rn Pe tit ion in t he Ma dis on

County J uvenile C o u rt alleg ing that the then three -month-old Child was depende nt, and re questing temporar y custody of M.E.A. be cause “the mother is in de tox at St. F ranc is H ospital for drug s and alcohol.” O n or about S eptember 11, 2000, J oy Ex um rec eived a call at her home and wa s advised that Moody

and her family had no money for f

ood and nec essities for the Child. J oy Ex um bought those items and met Moody ’s mother, J udy Dunning , and her

sister, Caroly

n Cunningham, at Milan, Tenne ssee to g ive them those items. Acc ording to Joy Ex um’s testimony , the Child appear ed to be
unke mpt and un c le an at th at me e tin gand Mo od y wa s n ot p re se nt. On September

19, 2000, the Exum s filed a Petit ion for Cust ody and obtained an emer g ency Orde r g rantingthem temporar y custody . On Dec ember

5, 2000, a full pre liminary hear ing w as held, at which time the Ma dison County J uvenile Court continued c ustody with the Ex ums. On September 21 , 200 1, a Cus tod

y Or de r wa s ent e re d, wh ic h co nti nu e d cu sto dy wi th the Exum s fol low ing a fu ll adjudicator

y and dispositional hearingon May 23, 2001. At the hea

ring , the cour

t ordere d a Permane nt ParentingPlan, which was f iled on September 21, 2001. T h e ParentingPlan allowed-3-

M o o dy an d Ar go v i s i t at i o nwi thM

. E

. A. un d er th e sup erv i s i o no f M o o dy ’s m o th er , J u dy Du n n i n g. T h e P ar en t i n g P l an al s o i n d i ca t edth atM o o dy an d Ar go we re t o co mp l et e t h e f o l l o wi n g: 1. Wit hin 30 day s o f t h e d at e o f the e ntry of the Or der on the Adjudicatory

and Dispositional Hear ing in thi s case (The O rder) wh i ch wa s h ea rd o n M ay

2 3 , 2 0 0 1 , th e P ar en t s , Da v i d T h o m as Ar go and Kim Moody

will beg in to attend pare nting c lasses at the Car l Perkins Center f

or C h i l d Ab use and c omplete 40 hours of c lasses wi thi n 9 0 d ay s a ft e r t

he date of

the e ntr y of Th e Or de r. Th e y

wi ll provide the Court or CASA a cer tificate of

attenda n ce or other
e vid e nc e of

c omp le tio n o f t

his re qu ir e me nt.
2. Da vid Th oma s Ar g o and Ki m Mo od y wi ll c on tr a c t fo r and

be g in alco h o l a n d dr u ga b u s e w e e k ly

c o un s e li n gs e s s io n s w it

ha li c ensed counselor tr ained in this fiel d , wi t h in 30 day s from the date of the
e ntr y of Th e Or de r. Th e y

wi ll c on tin

ue to a tte nd and pa rt ic ipate in said sessions until t he counse lor decide s that counseling is no long er nece ssar y
. T hey

will provide the Court or CASA a c ertificate of
atte nd anc e or

oth e r e vid e nc e of

c omp le tio n o f t

his re qu ir e me nt.
3. David Thomas Ar g o and Kim Moody will not consume alcohol of any kind, or drug s (other tha n over t h e counter

medications and proper ly presc ribed medic ations) at any time.

4. Ne ith e r Pare nts , Mr s. Judy Dunn ing , no r M r. and Mr s. Exumsh a ll
smo ke or a llo w o the rs to s mok e in t he pr esen ce of the c hil d, or in
manner [a] wher e the c hild is subj ecte d to second ha nd smoke.

* * * [12]

. David Thomas Ar g o and Kim Moody will attend at least thre e AA meet i n gs p er week be g inning by October 1, 2001 and provide evidenc e of attendance to the Court or CASA.

* * *

III

. F IN A N C IA L S U P P O R T F O R

C H ILD

A. CH I L D SU PPO RT P ER C HI L D SU PPO RT GU I DE L I NE S OR DE VIAT I ON S:

.. .T h e m o th e r , K i mM o o dy s h a l l p ay c h i l d s u p p o rtt o M r

. an d

M r s. Ex um, when she become s employ ed, in the amount of 21% of her ne t income, beg inning with the f irst paychec k she re ceives until further-4- order of the Court. Mrs. Moody will provide the C ourt with evidenc e of her ear nings at the time she bec omes employ ed.

On J anuar

y 10, 2002, the Ex ums filed a “Petition for Termination of P are ntal Rights” ( the

“ Pe tit ion ” ) a g a ins t Mo od

y , Ar g o, and Rand

y Th oma s Mo od

y
. Th e Pe tit ion

re a ds , in re le va nt p art , a s f oll ow s:
29. Termi n ati on of Respondent’s pa renta l rig hts is sought based upon, as alter

natives to one a

nother, the f

o l l o wi ngg rounds which petitioners ar e pre pare d to prove by clea r and c onvincingevidenc e.
30. As to KI MBERLY DARL ENE MOOD Y;

a. Abandonment by

KIM B E RL

Y DARL ENE MOOD Y, as def ined in TCA 36-1-102, ha s occur red.
b. MO OD Y i s a

ble bo die d, me nta lly

c omp e te nt a

nd we ll able to sec ure at l ea se minimum wag e employ ment and provide support fo r t he Child. On information
and be lie f, MO OD Y h a s b e e n em pl oye d a nd is
curr ently employ ed. MOOD Y is under a Court Order to p ro vid e su

pp or t f or the Chi ld, but ha s w ill fu lly failed to make rea sonable pa y ments for the Child’s
su pp or t for mo re tha

n f our ( 4) months imm e diate ly prec eding the filing of this Petition. The C h i l dhas been in the custody of the Petitioners since Septembe r 19, 2000.... MOODY ha s at all times since September 19, 2000, been able to pr ovide support for the Child, but has willfully

failed to do so, or in the alter native, any support provided wa s token s upport and ins ig nif ic ant g ive n h e r m e ans or

a bil ity to s up po rt

. MOODY has willfully failed to visit said Child m ore than token visitations, defined a s nothing m ore tha n perf unctory v i s i t ations or visitations of such an inf re qu e nt n atur e or

of su c h s ho rt du rat ion

a s to me re ly e s t a bli shmin ima l or

ins ub sta nti a l c on ta c t w ith the Child.

c

. Th e Ch il d

h a s b e e nr e mo v e d

f r o m t h e h o me o f

the pare nt or guardia

n by Orde r of the Court for a period of six m o nths and the conditions which led to the Chi ld’ s r e mov a l, o r o the r c on dit ion s, wh ic h in a ll
re as o nable pr obability

would cause the Child to be-5- subjected to fur

ther a buse or ne g lect and which, there fore , pre[vent] the Child’s saf e return to the car e of the pa rents or guardia

ns, still persists; further , there is li tt le li k e li h o o d

th at t h e s e c o n d it io n s w il l be
reme died at an e ar l y date so that the Child can be safe ly returne d to the pare nts i n the nea r future ; and the c on tin

uatio n of the pa

re nt and c hil d relation sh ip g re atly dim ini sh e s th e Chi ld’ s c ha nc e s o f e arl y i n t e g r at i o ni n t o a s a f

e , s t a b l e an d p e r

m a n e n th o m e

. In support of this alleg ati on, Petitioners state the fo l l o wi n g: (1 ) M OO DYha s n o s uit a bl e re sid e nc e ava ila

ble to proper ly car e for and nurture this Chi ld. (2) MOO DY has no e mploy ment o r i ncome of

any substantial nature with which to proper ly support the Child and see to her

daily phy sical and medical ne eds
un de r t he c ur re nt c ir c ums tanc e s. (3) MOODY has not a cquire d, nor does it a ppear she wi ll a c quir e, r e qu isi te pa re nti ngsk ill s n e c e ssa

ry to proper l y car e for

a youngchild and to provide fu n d am en t al ca re , wh i ch co n s t i tu tes a c ondition which preve nts safe r eturn of the Child t o her c are

. (4) MOO DY continues to c onsume and a buse alc ohol and/or other

drug s in vio l ation of the Court Orde red ParentingPlan. (5) MOO DY has f

ailed to comply

with the Court Orde red Par entingPlan, in that she has not conta cted or begun wee kly

alcohol and dr

ugabuse c ounseling sessions w ith a licensed counselor trained in that field, wit h in thirty

day s of the entr

y of the Or der on Se ptem be r 2 1, 20 01 . Su c h c ouns e lin gwa s to continue until th e counselor de cided c ounseling was no longe r nec essar

y . MOODY ha s n o t p rovi ded the Court or CASA a Certificate of Attenda nce or other
e vid e nc e of

c omp le tio n o f t

his re qu ir e me nt.O n M ar ch 5, 200 2, t he M adi s on Co un t y Ju ven i l e Co ur t en t er ed O r ders t er mi nat i ng Arg o and Randy T homas 2
M o o d y' s p a re n ta l righ ts a n d the y a re no t p a rtie s to this a p p e a l.
-6- (6) MOO DY h as v i o l at edth e C o urtOr d er edP ar enting Plan b y smo king in the p re se nc e wh e re the Chi ld i s subjected to sec ond hand smoke.

* * * (8) M O O D Yh a s v iolated the Court Orde red Par enting Plan b y failingor re fusingto attend at lea se three Alc o h o li c s An o n

y mous me eting s per we ek, beg inning October 1 , 2001 and provide evidenc e of attendance to the Court or CASA. (9) MOO DY’S lifestyle and livingcirc umstan ces wer e, and c ontinue to be such that the Child would be in a ve ry un sta ble ho us eho ld, and

wo uld have little likelihood of l iving in the same household for any len gt h of time, there by

neg atingany

possibili ty

that the Child can ac hieve a

ny continuity

in her life.

* * * (1 1 ) MOODY has no stable r elationship with the Child’s biol og ical father, DA VI D THOMAS ARGO,
and the pa rt ie s n o lo ng e r res ide in t he same household, and ther e has be en little, if any , eff ort on MOODY’ S part to re unite with the fathe r in an attempt to establish and maintain for any leng th of time, a nuclea

r household.

On Janu ary 10 , 2 00 2, the Exum s a lso fi le d a Mo tio n to Suspe nd Vi sit atio ns , whic h a sse rt s, inte r a lia , that Moody was sti ll abusingalcohol, had f ailed to show any

stability in her lifestyle, and that, if visitation was not suspended, irre para ble har m w o u l d co m e t o the Child. On J anuar y 10, 2002, an Or der w as ente red suspe nding Moody and Ar g o’s visitation with M.E.A.

On J anuar y 29, 2002, a hear ing to de termine e ligibility for a ppointed counsel wa s held upon
no tic e to a ll De fe nd ants of the ir ri g hts to b e re pr e se nte d b y a pp ointe d c ou

ns e l if the y we re ind ig e nt. Arg o did not appear

at t he hearing

. Randy Thomas M oody did not appea r because he was in prison, but he did corr espond with the court i n writ ing that the child “wa s not his child and that he was satisfied to allow the c ourt to do wh at ever was be st for the c hild.” He did not re quest counsel. 2T h e O r der a ppoi n t i n g t h e G u ar di an Ad Li t em wa s f i l ed on Se pt embe r 23, 2002. 3

Fr om our r evi ew of t he r ecor d, i t appear s t han none of t he part i es pur s ued f

ur t her di s cover y or s ough t t o t ender 4

m o re pro o f

, pursuant t o t hi s O rder.
-7- Mo od y a pp e are d a nd reques ted c ouns e l. B y

Or de r o f M arc h 2 5, 20 02 , c ouns e l w a s a pp ointe d to
r e p r e s e n tM o o dy.
The he aringon the termination of Moody ’s par ental rig hts was sche duled for June 4, 2002. Moody filed her Answer to the Petition to Terminate Parenta l Rig hts on J une 3, 2002. A he aringon the merits was he ld over thre e day s: J une 4, 2002, August 15, 2002, and September 10, 2002. After the fi rs t w itn e ss h a d f

ini sh e d, the atto rn e y s n oti fi e d th e c ourt of the ne e d for a Gu ard ian A d L ite m. Pr oo f w a s po stp on e d un til a Gu ard ian Ad L ite m w a s a

pp ointe d a

nd a llo we d r e a so na

ble op po rt

un ity to reviewthe ca se. 3 Duringthe cour se of the tr ial, J oy Ex um testified that it wa s not her intent to adopt M.E.A. At that time, counsel for

Moody moved the cour

t to dismiss the ca se for

lack of standing pursuant to T.C.A. 3 6 -1-113(b). The c ourt denied the motion, which was re newe d at the close of the Petitioners’ proo f an d again at the close of a ll proof. On September 26, 2002, the Exum s filed a Mot i o n to Amend Pleading s, seekingto add as Petitioners either the Guar dian Ad L item or the “per s p e c ti v e [s ic ] a d o p ti v e p ar e n ts , ” w h o w e r e n o t n ame d in th at M o ti o n o r at th e h e ar in g . A hear ing on this Motion was held on October 22, 2002. On October 25, 2002, the trial cour t signe d
an “ Or de r o n M oti on

to A me nd

Ple a din g s, ” wh ic h r e a ds , in pe rt ine nt p art , a s f

oll ow s:
After revie w of the M otion to Amend the Pleading s, and the statements of c ounsel, the Court i s o f the opinion that the Motion should be g rante d. I t is there fore , Orde red, A djudge d, and De cre ed by the Court that the Motion to Amend the Pleading s be and the same [is] here by g rante d. The P et i t i o n ers may add as a dditional Peiti oners the pr os pe c tiv e a do pt i v e p a

r e nts o f [M .E .A .], a

nd wi ll f ile the a pp ro pr iate pleading s to do so. I t is further Or d er ed t h at the proof in the case is hereby reope ned to all par

ties, as to a

ny issue in this case with full rights of pa rt ic ipatio n b y

the pa rt ie s. I t is fu rt he r O rd e re d th at th e pa rt ie s ma y c on ti nu e the ir discovery eff orts and that any

discovery which is desired by either the Pe tit ion e rs or

the Re sp on de nt s ha ll p ro c e e d a s so on a s p os sib le in order not to delay

the re setting of

the ca se for

additional proof. 4O n N o vem b er 12 , 20 0 2 , M o o d y and her co usi n, Janet Lynn Sc o t t (who has M o o d y ’ s p o wer of at t o rney ), al o ng 5 wi t h M r s

. Scot t ’ s hu s band, Jef f r ey D al e Scot t , f

i l ed an “ I nt er ven i ng P et i t i on f or Ado pt i on and T er mi nat i on of P ar ent al R i ght s. ” P aragraph 6 of t hi s P et i t i o n reads: “

. . . t he C o - P et i t i o ner, K i m b erl y D arl ene M o o d y , t he nat ural m o t her of t he C h ild jo ins in this P e tit io n fo r t h e p u rp o se o f v o lun ta rily su rr e n d e rin g a ll p a re n ta l rig h ts to [M .E .A .] a n d to c o n se n t t o t he adop t i on of

s ai d chi l d by t he P et i t i oner s pur s uan t t o T enn es s ee C od e A nn ot at ed §3 6- 1- 11 3. ” T he P et i t i on was s i gn ed by M oo dy an d her s i gn at ur e wa s s worn t o a nd s ubs cr i bed. T he E xu ms f i l ed a t r i al bri ef i n ans wer t o t he P et i t i on f i l ed b y M o o d y and t he Sc o t t s. T he f i nal O rder ent ered by t he t ri al co urt on Ja nuary 2 1 , 20 0 3 dis m i ss es t he p o rt i o n of t he Int erveni ng P et i t i o n f

o r l ack o f

jur i sdi ct i o n i n t he Juveni l e C o urt t o pro cess an ad o p t i o n.

-8- On Novembe r 6, 2002, an “ Orde r for Amendment of Pleading s” was enter ed, which adde d Ba rry Gre g gand Susan Gre g gas Petitioners in the ca se. 5 On J anuar

y 21, 2003, the trial court enter ed its “ Finding s of F act, Conclusions of L aw, a nd Orde r for Termination of Par ental Rig hts” (the “ Final Or der” ). The F inal Orde r re ads, in pertinent pa rt , a s f oll ow s:
F INDING S OF F ACT 1. This Court, after he aring p ro of, re viewingthe exhibit s and the entire f ile, has dete rmined by

clea r and c onvincingevidenc e that the Re sp on de nt, KI MB ERLY D ARL EN E M OO DY , h a s: A. Eng ag ed in an extensive pattern of long sta nding a lcohol abuse, resultingin severa l convictions for public intoxi cation, drivingunder the influenc e of intoxi cants, and that this pattern exist ed prior to the filing of the Petition for c ustody , and has c ontinued while the custody Petition was pending , throug h its completion, and has continued a fter the filing of the Petition for termina t i o n up throug h the date of the fi n al h ea ri n g.
B. That the extent and the sever ity of Respondent’s alcohol abuse ha s re nd e re d h e r i nc a

pab le of ma int a ini nga

pa re nt/ c hil d r e latio ns hip betwee n her a

nd the child, and that she is inc apable of par entingthe child.
C. That on at least one occa sion, during a schedule d wee kend visitation of Respondent with the child, she left the visitatio n after about one a

nd one-h al f h o urs with the child, trave led with an unknown male to a near

by g roce ry store, and they purch as ed t wo twelve- packs of beer

. This w as verifie d not only by the testimony

of the investig ator, but was clearly shown on the vi deo taken at the time,
and a dmi tte d to by

the Re sp on de nt.
D. Th at fo r a shor

t period of time, the Responde nt was provided h o u s i n g, u t i l i t i es , an d

o th er am en i t i es re l at i v el y

fr ee o f ch ar ge-9- thr ou g h a g ov e rnme nt p ro g ra

m, b ut that sh e wa s e vic te d f ro m th os e living quar

ters after complaints from her neig hbors over loud noise, parties at late hour s of the eve ning, a nd not keepingthe pre mises clea n amongother thing s. There was testimo n y that the manag er we nt int o th e a

pa rtme nt whe n Re sp on de nt w a s p re se nt a nd sa w 3 0 to 40 empty beer cans prese nt in the apar tment. That this incide nt took pla c e wh ile the Pe tit ion

fo r t e rm inatio n w a s p e nd ingin t his Court

. E. Th at a c c or din gto t he te sti mony

fr om DAN A WI L L I AM S, Re s p o n d e n t’ s c a s e w o r

k e r at Pathw ay s , w h ic h w a s un r e b u tt e d , the Respondent had smoked cra ck, an illega l drug , and that her drinking had incr ease d steadily in the past five year s and that the Responde nt fe e ls o ut o f c on tr ol whe n d ri nk ing . That whe n the Re sp on de nt s tart s drinking , she ca

nnot stop. T h at the Respondent re ported having voices in her

head a nd that it was g etting w orse. T h at Respondent suffers fr o m major depr ession and has a history of seve re a

nd pe rs ist e nt m e nta l il lne ss.
F . T hat th e Re sp on de nt h a s H e patit is- C, and that a lth ou g h s he is
awa re that she ca

nnot beg in treatments for this co ndition unti l she stops drinking a lcohol, she has f ai l ed to s top drinking a

nd has not
re c e ive d h e r t

re atme nts

. G. That DA

NA WI L L I AMS testified t hat R espondent was awa re that with her phy sical illness she ca nnot t ak e care of the child. Fur ther, that Respondent was awa re throug hout the course of this proce eding that if she does not chang e her lifestyle, she would be cut off f rom her child. H. That Responde nt MOODY ha s not been e mploy ed since 19 99,
an d h a s n o f o r e s e e a b le a b il it y to b e c o me e mp lo y e d

in th e f uture. That MOODY h as n o t provided a ny support for the c hild since the
c hil d wa s r e mov e d f

ro m he r h ome . T hat MO OD Y’ S vi sit atio ns wi th the c h il d p r io r to th e f

il in g o f th e te r

mi n ati o n Pe ti ti o n , w e re toke n visitations, and did not s erve to solidi fy her r elationship wi th the child. That on occa sions the visitations wer e of a very short duration. On one of the weekend visitations, MOODY testified that she and the child’s father and pater

nal gra ndmother got drunk, and that MOODY was drivingthe vehicle while intox icated.

I . That MOODYhas no sourc es of income other than mone y she
rec eives from her f

amily or fr iends, that she has no suitable r esidenc e available to her to proper ly establish a home and care for a nd nurture-10- the child. That she has no ability to pr operly support the child and se e to t he c hil d’ s d a ily

phy sic a l and

/or e mot ion a l ne e ds

. J. Th at MO OD Y h a s n ot acqui red , n or do e s it a pp e ar t hat sh e wi ll acquir e, the requisite parenting skills nece ssary to properly car e for a y oungc hil d a

nd to p ro vid e fu

nd ame nta l c are , whic h c on st it utes a condition which pre vents safe return of the child to her c are

. K. That MOODY did not comply with the Permane nt ParentingPlan b y c o n ti nu in ga lc o h o l a

n d dr u ga b u s e w e e k ly

c o un s e li n gs e s sions with a l icense d counselor, that she violated the Per manent Pare nting Plan by continuing to consume alcohol, and violated the Per manent ParentingPlan by fa i l i ngto attend at lea st three Alc oholics Anony mous meeting s per we ek.

L . That MOODY

has g iven her full power of attorne y to her c ousin, J ANET SCOTT, who basica lly takes car e of MOODY , and provide s fo r h e r n e e ds

. M. That MOODYis depende nt upon her fa mily and fr iends for he r needs, a nd that she has no phy sical or emotional ability to pr ovide for her own needs, nor will she likely be able to acquire that ability in the fore seea ble future . That JANET SCOTT, MOODY’ S witness at the trial, ag ree d that MOODY ha d no ability to take car e of the child and provide the c hi l d with even the minimum phy sical, medica l, and emotional needs of

the child.

N. Th at MO OD Y h a s c on tin ue d to de mon str ate that sh e ha s n o s ta ble
re latio ns hip wi th t

he c hil d’ s b iol og ic a l f

athe r, AR GO , a

nd tha t th e ir relationship has been stormy throug hout the time of the child’s life, and that ARGO is a c onfirmed a lcoholic with no intentions of curbing his abuse of alcohol. That i n spite of the ef fec ts that this has on her ability to convince the Court of her de sire to kee p her c hild, MOODY
c on tin ue s to a bu se a lc oh ol. O. That Moody

initially g ave up c ustody

of the c hild t o h er sist er, beca use of he r arr est and incar cer ation for dr iving unde r the influenc e of alc o h o l when the child was in the vehic le with her, unr estraine d,
and c hil d e nd ang e rm e nt a

nd ult imate c onvic tio n f

or tho se of

fe ns e s in Marc h, 2000. That the c ondit i ons which lea d to the remova l of the child, and other

conditions which preve nt return pe rsist, and t hat there is l itt le lik e lih oo d th at th e se c on dit ion s w ill be re me die d at a n e arl y date, a nd c o ntinuation of pare ntal rig hts gr eatly diminis hes the c hild’s-11- chanc e for

ear ly integ ration into a stab le home. That Moody has fa ile d to mak e fu

nd ame nta l adj us tme nts in h e r l if e sty le wh ic h c ou ld make a safe return of

the child possible.

P. T hat a

c ha ng e of c are take rs and

phy si cal e nv ir onme nt o ve r t o Mo od y is l ike ly to h ave a de tr ime nta l ef

fe c t on the c hil d’ s e mot ion a l, psy cholog ical and me dical condition. Q. That M O O D Y in

h e r te s ti mo n y

an d s w o r ns tate me n t, h as ad m i t t edth e f

o l l o wi n g:
1. That she is an a lcoholic. 2. Th at sh e c on tin

ue s to us e and

a bu se a lc oh ol. 3. That she ha s no fi n an ci al ability to car e for

the
c hil d a nd to s e e to t

he c hil d’ s p hy sic a l ne e ds

. 4. That she ha s no income, nor does she have the ability to ge t income for her support or that of the child. 5. Th at sh e kn ow s th at he r H e patit is- C con dit ion is a
se ri ou s matte r, and

that it is l if e th reat e nin gif untreated. 6. Th at sh e kn ow s sh e c ann ot st art tr e atme nts un til she has be en alc ohol free for at least six months. That MO ODY ha s y e t to sta rt any tr e atme nt f

or thi s condition. 7. That she is totally

dependa nt upon J ANET SCOTT
and oth e r f amil y me mbe rs fo r h e r sup po rt

and that th is will not chang e in the for esee able f uture. 8. That she ha s no transportation. 9. That she ha s no home or stable pla ce to live. 10. Th at s h e h a s le f

t a v is it ati o ns e s s io nw it

hthe child afte r a short time a

nd purcha sed alcohol for

her own consumption. That she kne w s he wa s being watche d at this tim e by an investig ator, but that buying be er w as “L eg al”. 1 1

. T hat on another

visitation weekend w ith the chil d , she and the child’s father a nd pater nal g randmother go t d runk and that she was dr iving the vehicle while intox icated. 12. That she ha s been c onvicted of dr iving unde r the influence of [an] intox icant while the child was in the
car with her unre strained.-12- 13. That i t is not unusual for her t o drink alcohol a nd drive a vehicle. 14. That she ha d pled guilty to child endang erme nt of the child. 15. That she ha s been in a lcohol and drug
re ha bil itatio n, (2 8 d ay s in

reha b a nd 12 da y s in St. F ra nc is H os pi tal) but th at sh e c on tin ue d to a bu se alcohol ther eaf

ter. 1 6

. T h at s h e h a s h a ll u c in ati o n s an d h e ar s h e r baby cry ing in he r hea d when she is not there. 17. That she suff

ers f rom m ajor depression, has a n ina bil ity to c on c e ntr ate , a

nd ha s p anic atta c ks

. 18 . T hat MO OD Y s tate d in a c ourt do c ume nt f

ile d in this case, unde r oath, that he r par ent al rights (and those of the father) should be terminated a nd that such termination would be in the best intere st of the child.

R. Th at the te rm ina

tio n of the Re sp on de nt MO OD Y’ S pa re nta l r ig hts to the child is in the best i n t er es t of the c hild. That the fore g oing Finding s of Fa ct support this finding by clea r and convincing evidenc e.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
* * *

1 0

. T h atth e p ro o f a n d

ev i d en ce as a w h o l e i s cl ea r a n d co n v i n ci n g, such as would r emove a ll doubt, and support a f inding that Moody has aba ndoned the c hild, has not compli ed wi th the Permane nt ParentingPla n or plan of c are , has fa iled to remedy conditions that l e d t o r e m o v a l o f th e c h i l d , c h i l d a b u s e , an d th at M o o dy i s m e n t a l l y, emotionally and phy sically incompetent to ca

re f or the c hild, and that h er i n ab i l i ty t o ca re fo r t h e c h i l d

i s co n t i nu i n g. Moody appea ls from this Final Orde r and r aises two issues for revie w as stated in he r brief:

1. Does a

party have standing to f

ile a petition whe n they

are not one of the pa rties specific ally

identified and/or e numerated under T.C.A. § 36-1-113( b).T his s t atute ha s si nc e b ee n a m en d ed

. T .C .A

. § 3 6

- 1

- 1 1 3 (b ) (S up p

. 2 0 0 3 ) no w rea d s: 6

T h e p ro sp e c tive a d o p tive p a re n t o r p a re n ts o f t h e c h ild , i n c lud ing e x te n d e d fam ily
m em b ers cari ng f

o r r el at ed chi l d ren, any li censed chi l d

- p l aci ng agency havi ng cus t od y of

t he chi l d, t he chi l d’ s gu ar di an ad l i t em, a c o ur t appo i nt ed s peci al adv o c a t e ( CA S A) a g e n c y , o r t h e d e p a r t m e n t s h a l l h a v e s t a n d i n g t o f i l e a pe t i t i on p u rs u a n t t o this p a rt o r p u rs u a n t t o ti tle 3 7 to ter m ina te p a re n ta l o r g u a rd ia n sh ip ri ght s o f a pe rs o n al l eged t o be a pa rent or guardian o f such chi l d

. T he p rosp ect i ve ad o p t i ve p arent s, i ncl ud i ng ext end ed f am i l y m em b e rs cari ng f o r r el at ed chi l d ren, shal l have st and i ng t o reque st t erm i nat i o n o f pa rent al or guardians hi p ri ght s i n t he
a d o p tio n p e tit io n fi le d b y the m p u rs u a n t t o this p a rt. -13- 2. Can the cour

t order the termination of pa renta l rig hts when the petitioner ha s fa i l ed to car ry the burde n of proof

nece ssary

to allow the termination of sa id rig hts to take place

. Since this case w as tried by the cour t sitt ing w ithout a jury , we r eview the case de novo upon the re cord w ith a presumption of cor rec tness of the finding s of fa ct by the trial cour

t. Unless the evide nce pr eponder ates a g ainst the finding s, we must aff irm, absent er

ror of law. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d).

St andi ng
As noted above , duringthe cour se of the tr ial, J oy Ex um testified that it was not her intent to adopt M.E.A. At that time, counsel for Moody moved the cour

t to dism iss the case for lac k of standing pursuant to T.C.A.§ 36-1-113( b). The c ourt denied the motion, which was re newe d at the close of

the Petitioners’ proof

and ag ain at the c lose of all proof

. At the time the Petition to Terminate was f iled in this case, T.C.A.§ 36-1- 113(b) ( 2001)
re a d a s f oll ow s:
36-1-113. Ter m ination of p arental r ights.–
* * * (b) The prospec tive adoptive par ent(s) of th e chil d, any

licensed child-plac ing ag ency

havingcustody

of the c hild, the child’s g uardia n ad litem, a cour

t appointed spec ial advocate (CASA) a g ency , or the depar tment shall have standingto file a pe tition pursuant to thi s part or pursua nt to tit le 37 to terminate pa renta l or guar dianship rig hts of a per son alleg ed to be a pare nt o r guar dian of such c hild. The pr os pe ctive a do pti ve pa re nts sh a ll h ave sta

nd ingto r e qu e st termination of par ental or guardia nship rights in t he adoption petition fi le d b y the m pu rs ua nt t o th is p art

. 6T enn

. R. Ju v. P

. 39 has not been amended t o dat e. 7

-14- Ap pe lla nts c on te nd

that T .C. A. §3 6- 1- 11 3( b) is d e te rm inativ e in t his c a se , th at th e Exum s did not have standingto file their Petition in thi s case , and that the amendment to the Petition, which adde d the Gre g g s as prospec tive adoptive par ents, was f iled too late to allow prope r adjudication of the issues. We disagr ee. At the time of the filingof the Petition to Terminate in this case , Tenn. R. J uv. P. 39 (2 00 1) re a d, in r e le va

nt p art , a s f

oll ow s:
RU L E 3 9
. T E RM I NA T I O N O F P AREN TA L RIG HTS (a) P etition . A petition to terminate t h e p arental rig hts of either or both pare nts to a minor child may be filed by

any person who ha s knowledg e of th e fa ct s alleg ed or is informe d and believe s they are true... 7

Tenn. R. J uv. P. 1 clear ly states that the Rules of Juvenile Procedure “ sha ll g overn the proce dure in Juvenile Court in all case s...involving the ter

mination of pare ntal rig hts.” Id

. (empha sis added). Rules of Juvenile Procedur e, alongwith the Rules of Criminal Procedure , Rules of Civil P roce dure, a nd Rules of Appellate Procedur e, ar e promulg ated by the joint action of the leg islature and the Supreme Court, T.C.A. § 16-3- 402 and T.C.A. § 16-3- 404 (1994), a nd th ey "have th e for ce andeffectof l aw. " Se eCro ssl in v . Al sup , 594 S.W .2d 379, 380 (Tenn. 1980). Althoug h it is well settled that “[s] tatutes which c onflict with the rules must be g iven eff ect to the e x tent possible.” se eCity of Car y v ill ev . Ca mpbe ll Co unty , 660 S.W .2d 510, 512 (Tenn. Ct. App.1983), the ultimate objective in statutory construction is to determine le g islative intent. City of Hum boldt v. Morris, 579 S .W.2d 860, 863 (Tenn. Ct. A pp.1978) . To that end, thi s Co ur t ha s h e ld t

hat “ [c]o nf

lic ts b e tw e e n p ro vis ion s o f t he Te nn e sse e Rul e s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure and

pr ov isi on s o f t

he Te nn e sse e Cod e wh ic h c ann ot b e ha rm on iou sly

c on str ue d w ill be re solved in favor

of the Te nnessee Rules of Civil P roce dure.” Mid-Sout h Pavers, Inc. v. Arnco Con st., Inc. , 7 71 S.W. 2d 42 0, 42 2 ( Te nn . Ct . App . 1 98 9) ; Arnol d v. City of Chattan ooga , 19 S.W .3d 779 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). T hese de cisions are in acc ord with the provisions of T. C.A . § 16 -3 -4 06 (1 99 4) , whic h p ro vid e s:

1 6

- 3

- 4 0 6
. La ws in c o nf

li c twi t h r ul e s nu ll ified.– After such rules [t hose desc ribed in T.C.A. §16-3- 402] shall have be come e ffe ctive,
a ll l aws in c on fl ic t th e re wi th s ha ll b e of no fu rt he r f or c e or e ff e c t.

For the fore g oing r easons, the c onflict on the issue of standingthat exis ts betwee n T.C.A. § 36-1-113( b) and Te nn. R. J uv. P. 39 is properly resolved in f

avor of the TennesseeRules of J uv e nile Proc e du re . Co ns e qu e ntl y , th e Exum s h a d s tand ingto f ile thi s Pe tit ion

to T e rm inate Pare nta l Rights re g ard le ss o f t he ame ndme nt t o a dd

the Gr e g g s a s p ro sp e c tiv e a do pti ve pa re nts

.-15-

Howeve r, eve n if we a ssume, arguendo , th at T e nn . R. Juv. P. 3 9 is no t bi nd ingin t his matter, the tria l court re tained jurisdiction over the case and wa s well within its auspices to gr ant the motion to amend the Petition for Termination. We have found no rule of juvenile proc edure dealingwith amendment to pleading s. Consequently an issue re g ardingamendments fa lls under the pr ov isi on

of Rul e of Juve nil e Pr oc e dure 1 ( d) wh ic h p ro vid e s: (d ) S I TU AT I ON S NO T CO VE RED B Y RU L ES. Whe re no sp e c if ic proce dure is pre scribed by these rules, the court may proce ed in any lawful manne r, in ac corda nce w ith written local rules of court, whic h sh a ll not be inc on sis te nt wit h the se ru le s or wit

h a ny oth e r a pp lic a ble law.

Te nn .R. Civ .P. 15 , whic h p ro vid e s th at ame ndme nts " sh a ll b e fr e e ly g ive n whe n ju sti c e so require s," g overns a

mendments in the other tria l courts in this state and it appea rs to be the
a pp lic a ble law u se d b y

the juv e nil e jud g e in t

his ins tanc e . Ru le 15 .0 3, Te nn .R. Civ .P. pr ov ide s:
Re lation Bac k of A m e ndm e nt s. - Wh e ne ve r t he c la im o r d e fe ns e a sse rt e d i n the ame nd e d p le a din g s aro se out of the c on du c t, transac tion or occur

renc e set forth or attempted to be set for th in the orig inal pleading , the amendme nt relate s bac k t o the date of the orig inal pleading . An amendme nt chang ing the party or the naming of the pa rty by or aga inst whom a cla im is asserted re lates bac k if the fore g oing pr ovision is satisfied and if, within the per iod provided by l aw fo r commenc ing a n action or w ithin 120 day s after
co mm e n c e me n t o f th e a c ti o n , th e p arty to b e b r o u g h t in by amendment ( 1) has r ece ived such notice of the in s t itution of the
a c tio n th at th e pa

rt y wi ll not be pr e

jud ic e d in ma int a ini nga

de fe ns e on the merits, and ( 2) knew o r s h o u l d have known that, but for a mis take c on c e rn ing the ide nti ty of the pr op e r p art y , th e a c tio n w ou ld h av e b e e nb r o u g h ta g a i n s tth e p arty. We find nothing in the re cord to pre vent the applica bility of the re lation back pr ovision. Acc ording ly , under e ither Tenn.R.Juv.P . 39 or under Tenn.R.Civ.P. 15, t he Petitioners had standing to petition for termination of par ental rig hts. Appellant also ar g ues that this amendment was filed too late to allow her suf ficient opportunity

to present e vidence conce rningthe addition of the Gr e g g s. Th is a

rgume nt a lso mus t f

a il i n li g ht o f t

he tr ia l c ourt ' s " or de r o n M oti on to Amend Pleading s," which spec ifically reope ned discove ry

and proof

of all par ties. Havingfailed to take adva

ntag e of that opportunity

at the trial leve l, Moody

cannot be hear d to complain on
a pp e a l. Havingdeter

mined that the Petitioners have sta nding to f ile this P etition for Ter

mination, we now tur

n to Appellant’s sec ond issue which, in essenc e, is whethe r Petitioners ca rried the burd e n o f p ro of

to s us ta in t e rm ina

tio n o f p are nta l r ights

.T .C .A

. § 3 6

- 1

- 1 0 2 (1 ) d efi ne s “A b an d o nm en t ,” i n p erti ne nt p art, as f o l l o w s: 8

( 1)( A ) “ A bandonm ent ” mean s , f or purpos es o f

t er mi nat i ng t he pare nt al or gu ar di an rig h ts o f p a re n t(s) o r g u a rd ia n (s ) o f a c h ild to th a t c h ild in o rd e r to m a k e tha t ch ild
a v a ilab le fo r a d o p tio n , t h a t:

(i) Fo r a peri o d of f

o ur ( 4 ) consecut i ve m o nt hs i m m ed ia te ly p reced i ng t he f

i l i ng of a p roce ed i ng o r p l ead i ng to t erm i nat e t he p a re n ta l righ ts o f t h e p a re n t(s) o r g u a rd ia n (s ) o f t h e c h ild w h o is t h e s u bj ec t of

t h e pet i t i on f

or t er mi n at i on of p are n t al r i g h t s or
a d o p tio n , t h a t t h e p a re n t(s) o r g u a rd ia n (s ) e ithe r h a v e w ill fully faile d to visit o r h a v e w ill fully f a iled to su p p o rt o r h a v e w ill fully f ai l ed t o m ake reasonab l e p ayments t o ward t he supp o rt of t he ch i l d;

-16- Term ination of Pare ntal Rights

T. C.A . § 36 -1 -1 13 (S up p. 20 01 ) g ov e rn s te rm inatio n o f p are nta l r ig hts and re a ds , in
re le va nt p art , a s f

oll ow s: (c) Termination of pa

renta l or guardia

nship rights must be base d up on : (1) A f inding by the cour t by clea r and convincingevidenc e that the g rounds for te rmi n a

ti o n [of] pare ntal or guardia nship rights have bee n established; and (2 ) Th at te rm inatio n of the pa re nt’ s or g ua

rd ian’ s ri g hts is i n th e be st interests of the c hild. The g rounds for te rmination of par ental rig hts are f ound in T.C.A. § 36-1-113(g ) (Supp. 2001): (g ) Initiation of te rmination of pare ntal or g uardia nship r ights may

be ba se d u po n a ny of the fo llo wi ngg ro un ds : (1) Aba ndonment by

the par ent or gua

rdian, as define d in §36-1-102, has occ urre d; 8 (2) The re ha s been substantial nonc ompliance by the par ent or g uardia n with the statement of responsibilities in a per manenc y plan or a pla n of ca re pur suant to the provisions of title 37, chapte r 2, part 4; (3)( A) The child has bee n remove d fr o m t he home of the par ent or g uardia n by order of a c ourt for a

period of six (6) months and: (i) The conditions which led to the child’s re moval or oth e r c on dit ion s w hic h in all r e a so na ble pr ob a bil ity
wo uld c a us e the c hil d to be su

bje c te d to fur

the r a bu se-17- or neg lect a nd which, ther efor e, pre vent the child’s safe return to the c are of the pa rent(s) or guardia

n(s), sti ll p e rs ist ; (i i) Th e re is little lik e lih oo d that the se c on dit ion s w ill be re medied at a

n ea rl y date so that the c hild can be safe ly returne d to the pare nt(s ) or guardia n(s) in the
near future; a nd (iii) The c ontinuation of the pare nt or gu ardia n and chil d relationship gre atly diminis hes the c hild’s chanc es of e arly

integ ration into a saf

e, stable a

nd perma nent home.

In th e ins tant c a se , th e tr ia l c ourt te rm inate d M oo dy ’s ri g hts ba se d o n s e ve ra l g ro un ds , including a

bandonment, fa ilure to comply with the pare nting plan, a nd prese nt and continuing ina bil ity to c are fo r M .E .A . We no te that c le ar a nd c onvin c inge vid e nc e of

any on e of the se g rounds is sufficient to ter minate Moody ’s par ental rig hts. SeeT.C.A. § 36-1-113( g ). Havingrevie wed the e ntire re cord in this matter, we find that Moody has take n no substantial strides since her initial arrest for

DUI and child enda

ng erme nt to ge t the help she
ne e ds in o rd e r t o o ve rc ome he r a dd ic tio n to a lc oh ol, no r h a s sh e ma de any su bs tanti a l atte mpt s to comply with the require ments outlined in the parentingplan. Additionally , Moody has bee n unable to proc ure a dequate housing f or her self or f

or her child. Moody ’s drunke n party ing
re su lte d in

he r e vic tio n f

ro m th e Hi llc re st Pl a c e Ap artme nts , whe re sh e ha d b e e n li vin gvir tua lly
re nt a nd uti lity fr e e . A t th e tim e of

the he ari ng , s he wa s li vin ga tr ans ie nt e xiste nc e , s tayingwi th a boy friend a

nd then with some other f riends. Moody

was not able to say

when she would be able to provide adequate and stable housing f or this child. Moody

also testified that she he ars vo ic e s, is d e pr e sse d, and

ha s p anic atta c ks . A lth ou g h M oo dy is s up po se d to take me dic atio n to control these e pisodes, the re cord shows that, on severa l occa sions, she has fa iled to take her medication (e ither bec ause the pills were stolen or be cause she fa iled to make sure that she had her me dications on hand). A t those times, Moody testified that she drinks to control he r anxiety

. In addition, Moody

suffe rs from He patitis-C, which she knows is a life thre ateningdisease. Moody also has bee n told that she cannot be g in treatment for this disease until she has bee n sober fo r at le a st s ix (6 ) m on ths . A t th e tim e of thi s h e ari ng , M oo dy

ha d n ot b e g un

tr e atme nt.
The re cord in this case supports the trial cour t’s Finding s of Fa ct as set out above

. M.E.A. has be en out of Moody ’s custody for the ma

jority of her life. The c ircumstance s that led to M.E.A.’s re moval from Moody ’s custody still persist. In short, Moody ’s alcoholism has and continues to result in behavior (i.e. a rre sts, inabilit y

to find employ

ment, inability

to start treatment for He patitis-C, inabili ty to manag e her

own af fairs) that is not only

detrimental to the safe ty and we lfare of M.E.A., but also to the saf ety and we lfare of Moody

herse lf. The r ecor d
re fl e c ts that Mo od

y , e ve n in the fa c e of

los inghe r c hil d, ha s b e e n unw ill ingor un a ble to a va il he rs e lf of pr og ra ms that mi g ht h e lp h e r t o ma na g e he r d ise a se . F ur

the rm or e , f

ro m th e re c or d, it does not appe ar that Moody ’s situation will be remedied a t any time in the forese eable future.-18-

Under T.C.A. § 36-1-113( g ) and f or the for eg oing r easons, we find that the continuation of the pare nt and child re lationship gre atly diminis hes M.E.A.’s c hance s for e arly integ ration into a safe , stable and pe rmane nt home.
The re cord, by

clea r and c onvincingevidenc e, esta blishes gr ounds for ter

mination and establishes that termination of pa renta l rig hts is in t he best intere st of this child. W e, ther efor e, aff irm the Orde rs of the juve nile court, ter minating the pa

renta l rig hts of Kimberly

Dar lene Moody . Costs of this appea l are assessed to the A ppellant, Kimberly

Dar lene Moody , and her
s ur e ty.

__________________________________________ W. F RA NK CRA W FOR D, P RE S I DI NG JUD GE , W. S.