### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON N ove m be r 30, 200 5 S es sio n IN R E: A D OP TI ON OF L. L. C . , A A R ON M IC HA EL D A R N EL L v .

NA THA N T ED COO K A Dire ct A ppeal f

romthe Chancer y Court for Shelby Cou nty No. CH-03-1381- 3 The Hon orable D. J. Alissandratos, Chancellor

No. W2005-00872-C OA-R3-P T - F iled Dece m ber 9, 2005 This appea l involves a petition for adopt io na n d termi n a ti o no f th e biolog ical father’s pa

renta l rig ht s filed by

biologica l mother and he r cur rent husband. T here is no transcript of the trial proce eding , and the r ecor d contains a state ment of evide nce f iled b y t h e biologica l father and objections there to with an additional statement of t h e ev i d en ce f iled by the petitioners, neither

of which we re sig ned by

the trial court. The stateme nts are dif fer ent in sever al re spects. The trial court g rante d the adoption and termination of the biologic al fat h er’s pare ntal rig hts on the g round of willful abandonme nt, but failed to make specif ic finding s of fa ct as re quired by T.C.A. § 36-1-113 (k ) ( 20 05 ). Th e bio log ic a l f a the r h a s a

pp e a le d. We v a c a te a ndre ma ndfo r f urthe r p ro c e e din g s.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; A ppe al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cha nc e r y C our t V ac at e d and Rem anded W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D R. F ARMER , J . and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., joined. Melissa C. Be rry

of Memphis, Tenne ssee f or Appe llant, Nathan Te d Cook Wil liam Craig Hall and Richa rd F . Vaug hn from Collierville, Tenne ssee f or Appe llees, Aa

ron Mic ha e l D arn e ll a ndJenn if e r D arn e llR ul e 10 (Court of Ap peal s )

. M emo r an dum O pi ni on. - - ( b) T he C our t , wi t h t he concu r r enc e of al l j udges 1 p art i ci p at i ng i n the case, m ay af f i rm, r everse or mo d i f

y t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al co urt by me m o randum op i ni o n when a formal opi ni on woul d hav e n o prece dent i al val ue. W hen a cas e i s deci ded b y memo r andum opi ni on i t s hal l be des i gn at ed

" M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N , " s hal l not b e p ub l i shed, and s hal l not b e ci t ed or rel i ed o n fo r any reas o n i n a s ub sequent u n re la te d c a se . 

### -2

- M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1 A brief sta t em en t of the fa cts will be made; howe ver, in the a bsence of finding s of fa ct by thetria l c ou rt

a nda tr a ns c ri pt o r r e c or d o f the pr oc e e din g s, we wi ll n ot atte mpt to f ull y state the fa c ts o f t h e c o n tr o v e r s y. L . L . C. was born Aug ust 2, 1995, to c o-petitioner, J ennife r JoyDarnell (fomerly Dunaway and her einaf

ter “ Mother”or

“Petitioner”) an d re spondent, Natha n Ted Cook (he reina fter “Respondent- Father” ). Afte r the birth of the child, the parties resided for some time w ith Mother’s pare nts until they

separ ated. Mother

marrie d petitioner, Aa

ron Michae l Darne ll ( here inafter “Da rnell”or “Petitioner”) on Fe bruary 4, 2000, and L
. L
. C. ha s resided with Petitioners since that time. On J uly

16, 2003, Petitioners filed a pe tition for adoption of L . L . C., n am i n g Fa ther, a s responde nt, in which they also soug ht to terminate Responde nt-Father’s pa renta l rig hts. The petition was a mended, pur suant to an o rd er o f t h e court, on Aug ust 11, 2004, seeking child support from Respondent-F ather

from the date of the c hild’s birth date to the date of adoption. We should first note that the rec ord in this c ase leave s much to be desire d. The re cord doe s not contain an answe r of Respondent-F ather to the orig inal petition for adoption and the amendment to the petitio n . R espondent-Fathe r filed a statement of the e vidence , and Petitioners filed a n objection, which included an additional statement of the e vidence . The dispute betwe en the pa rties conce rning the statements of the evidenc e wa s never resolved by the trial court, although a meeting was he ld, refle cted by

the re cord, to attempt to c omplete a re cord of the testimony . We also note that the final d ec re e enter ed by the trial court rec ites that the trial court considere d the answe rs to the petition f or adoption, the amende d petition for adoption, and de positions of the Respondent-Father a ndPe tit ion e rs , n on e of

wh ic h a re inc lud e d inthe re c or d o n a pp e a l. The pe tition for adoption alleg es t h at R espondent-Fathe r wilfully abandone d the child for more than f

our conse cutive mo n th s imme diately prec eding the filing of the pe tition, and the amended pe tit iona lle g e s th a t heha s f a ile d to pay

a ny c hil d s up po rt
. T. C.A . § 36 -1 -1 13 (2 00 5) pr ov ide s, in p e rt ine nt p art : c) Termination of pare ntal or g uardia nship rights must be b as ed up on :T .C .A . § 3 6 -1 -1 0 2 (B ), (C ), (D ), (E ) re sp e c tive ly, d e fine to k e n su p p o rt, to k e n visita tio n , w ill ful failu re to 2
su p p o rt, w ill fully f a iled to visit. 

### -3

-

(1) A f inding b y the court by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that the g rounds for termination of pare ntal or g uardia nship rights ha ve bee n established; and (2 ) T h att er m i n at i o n o f t h e p ar en t 's o r gu ar d i an 's rig hts is in t he best intere sts of the child. T. C.A . § 36 -1 -1 13 (g )( 1) (2 00 5) pr ov ide s: (g ) Initiation of termination of parental or gua rdianship rig hts may

be ba se d u po n a ny

of thefo llo wi ng g ro un ds : (1) Abandonment by the parent or guar dian, as defined in § 36-1-102, ha s o c c ur re d; T. C.A . § 36 -1 -1 02 (2 00 5) , pr ov ide s, in p e rt ine nt p art : 2 (1) ( A) F or purpose s of terminating the pare ntal or g uardia n rig hts of pare nt(s) or g uardia n(s) of a child to that child in order to make that c hil d a va ila

blefo r a do pti on , " aba nd on me nt" me a ns that: (i) For a period of four (4) consec utive m o n t hs immediately

prec eding the filing of a pr oce ed ing or pleading to terminate the pa renta l rig hts of the pare nt(s) or g uardia n(s) of the child who is the subject of the pe tition for termination of par en tal rig hts or adoption, that the par ent(s) or g uardia n(s) e ither have wi llf ull y fai le d to vis it o r h a ve wi llf ull y faile d to su pp ort or

ha ve wi llf

ull y faile d to make re a so na

ble pay me nts tow ardthe su pp ort of the c hil d; The fina l decr ee in this ca se, as t o t h e grounds f or termination of Responde nt-Father’s pa re nta l rig hts , s ta te s: IT FUR TH ER A PPEA RI NG t o t he C ou rtth at t he R e sp on de nt,

Nathan T ed C ook, natura l fathe r or sa id child has wilfully abandone dSee T
. C

. A

. § 3 6

- 1

- 1 1 3 (i ). 3
In the e v e n t o f a futu re a p p e a l, the p a rtie s sh o u ld p ro v id e a n a d e q u a te re c o rd to this C o u rt. 4 

### -4

- sa id c hil d f

or mor e than f

ou r c on sec uti ve mon ths imm e diate ly prec eding the filing of the Petition for Adoption. I T FU RTHER AP PEARI NG to the Court that it is in t he mani fest best intere sts of said minor child that the Petition and Amended Petition should be g rante d, and ITFU R T H E R A PPEA RINGto the Cou rt that th e c hil d s ho uld be dec lare d to be an a

bandoned c hild and the par ental right s of the Respondent , Nathan Ted Cook, the natura l father , should be te rm inate d to the c hil d fo re ve r a nd that he sh ou ld h a ve no le g a l rig hts to the custody , control, or to visitation with the child in the future. T. C.A . § 36 -1 -1 13 (k ) ( 20 05 ) p ro vid e s: (k) The court shall ente r an or der that makes spec ific finding s of fa ct and conc lusions of la w within thirty (30) day s of the c onclusion of the hearing. It is obvious from the final dec ree that it concerns termination of par ental r i gh ts, but there are no specific finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law a s require d by the s tatute. For

example, willful abandonment c ould be one of sever al par ental termination requireme nts under the de finitions set out in T.C.A. § 36-1-102. The f indings of f

act should cover the pe riod of time re quired by the te rm inatio n s ta tut e a ndsh ou ld be su ff ic ie nt t o c omp ly

wi th the ma nd a te of

the statut e that th e re mus t be cle ar and convincing evidenc e of g rounds for te rmination. M o re o v er , t h e finding s of the trial court should include spe cific f act f indings c oncerning the best interest of the child, as require d by thete rm inatio n s ta tut e s. 3 Acc ording ly , we ha ve no alternative in this case but to vacate the dec ree of the trial c ourt and rema nd this case to the tr i al co u rt for f urther pr ocee dings c onsistent with thi s Opinion and the statut ory re qu ir e me nts fo r te rm inatio n of p are nta l rig hts

. Se e In Re : D .L.B. , 118 S.W .2d 360, 367 4 (Tenn. 2003)

. Cos ts o f the app e a l are a sse sse d o ne -h a lf to the Ap pe llant- F a the r, Nathan T e d Co ok , a ndhis su re ty , a ndon e -h a lf

to A pp e lle e s, Aa

ro n M ic ha e l D arn e ll andJenn if e r Joy Da rn e ll.

### -5

- __________________________________________ W. F RA NK CRA WF OR D, P RE S I

DI NG J UDGE, W.S.